This blog is a part of the “Approach Question Type” series and like all articles in this series will focus on step 4 of the “Analyze Stimulus” step. If you need a refresher on how to approach LR questions generally, make sure to check up on our blog "How to Approach the Logical Reasoning Section.”
Table of Contents:
In our “How to Approach the LR Section” we discussed what makes an argument good or bad, and that assessing the quality of an argument in the LSAT is largely a function of two variables: support and assumptions. To strengthen an argument, we can fill in the assumptions gap or solidify the support; to weaken an argument, we might suggest obvious assumptions or question the validity or probability of the support provided.
An evaluate question in the Logical Reasoning section asks you to assess the strength or weakness of an argument presented in the stimulus. For most cases, this type of question is easy to identify as the phrase evaluate the argument will be directly included in the question stem. Unlike basic strengthen or weaken questions, evaluate the argument questions require you to critically analyze the overall persuasiveness of the argument and consider both sides of how it could be improved or undermined based on having certain additional information (in the answer choices). You are not asked to find new information or draw conclusions; instead, you must determine how additional information or reasoning would affect the argument's persuasiveness.
1. Approach w/ a Neutral & Objective Stance: Instead of taking a side or arguing for a particular position, you must approach the argument objectively. Your task is to evaluate the reasoning presented in the stimulus and determine its overall strength or weakness.
2. Finding the gap/assumption: Consider whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises or if any unstated assumptions need to be addressed (there will be). This step is essential for determining what kind of additional information or reasoning would strengthen or weaken the argument.
3. Answer Choice Pass-Through, Fill in the Answer with Polar Options:
The answer choices will be in the form of questions or statements that invite us to assume different possibilities. The correct answer choice will give us a statement question, of which the answers to that statement can go two ways: one path strengthens and one path weakens the author’s conclusion. A general rule to consider is if the answer to a statement is irrelevant to the author’s argument, then the answer choice can be eliminated.
Let's walk through a stimulus and two answer choices where we will fill in the answer.
Stimulus:
"60% of students at X University have reported feeling stressed and overwhelmed due to the heavy workload and competitive environment. Therefore, the university should implement a mandatory mental health program to support students in managing their stress levels and maintaining their well-being."
Conclusion: The author argues that a mandatory mental health program to support students should be implemented at X University to manage stress.
Answer Choices:
A) What proportion of the 60% of students at X University who feel stressed also experience some type of anxiety?
B) Did the mandatory mental health programs implemented 5 years ago at Y College, a sister College to X University, lower overall student stress levels?
—————————————————————————————————————
Analysis:
The author argues for mandatory mental health programs to be implemented because the majority of students at the university report feeling stressed. The argument makes a jump from the premise (stressed students) to his conclusion (mental health program) presumably under his belief that mandatory mental health programs will improve the situation. Remember to approach this argument with an objective and unbiased opinion. Regardless of your outside knowledge, we should only take a look at what’s happening in the stimulus, and what is happening is that there is a large logical gap from Stressed Students → Implement a mandatory MH program. Who knows? — Maybe there is overwhelming evidence that a mandatory MH program guarantees a reduction in student stress levels, so it seems to be the obvious step to the author. But we, as the reader and objective analyzer of this argument, will not assume such a large piece of evidence to help this argument. Instead, we can compare both of the answer choice statements, ask ourselves what would happen if the answer to those statements went either way and consider whether that information will assist us in either strengthening OR weakening the author’s conclusion.
A) What proportion of the 60% of students at X University who feel stressed also experience some type of anxiety?
Fill in the answer:
The answer to this question doesn’t do anything to our conclusion! Neither does it weaken or strengthen the conclusion (implement mandatory MH program) because now we have another variable of “anxiety” and we still have no way to connect “stress” to → mental health program.
B) Did the mandatory mental health programs implemented 5 years ago at Y College, a sister College to X University, lower overall student stress levels?
Fill in the Answer:
Evaluate the argument questions are the gateway to mastering strengthening and weakening questions on the LSAT. They're all about digging into how extra information can tip the scales of an argument. Approach these questions by staying neutral, spotting the gaps, and testing out each answer with different scenarios in anticipation of how information can affect the argument (if at all). Evaluate questions force you to think like an LSAT question writer, so having a good grasp of this question type will really help you understand how arguments in general work in the LR section!
