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 the Logical Reasoning section of the LSAT, a "method of reasoning" question asks you to identify how an argument is constructed. It may ask you to identify the role of a single statement or describe the argument’s method as a whole. These questions focus on the structure and technique of the argument rather than its content. To answer these questions correctly, you need to understand how the premises support the conclusion and how the author uses evidence and reasoning to make their point.
The structure of a method of reasoning question will either be one of these two:
1) Two distinct voices. One argument, one counterargument. The task is to analyze the technique of the counterargument.
2) One voice argument. Analyze the method of reasoning of the author.
Method of reasoning questions typically include phrases like:
Our goal here is not to be in favor of any side of the argument or to be critical of why the author chose X approach to arrive at their conclusion. If the stimulus contains two distinct voices, we need to be unbiased and not support either side of the argument.
A method of reasoning question asks us to be descriptive; we need to figure out, objectively, what is occurring in the argument, regardless of whether the technique or method is a valid or well-supported reason.
Really, a method question is just asking us to figure out, what tactic(s) this person uses to try and convince us. Did they cite sources and evidence, or use metaphors and comparisons? Did they make use of causal conditional logic, or did they make assumptions and generalizations?
Below is a list of some common methods of logic to make an argument. This list is not exhaustive, and some questions may take certain elements from multiple methods.
Did you notice that some of these methods of reasoning are actually flawed ways of making an argument? For example, we see “Appeal to Authority” as a possible flawed method in our guide "Simple Guide on Flaw Questions." Indeed, if used as the sole piece of evidence to try and guarantee our conclusion, it would be a flaw. Of course, we can still use appeals to authority as a method to supplement our argument. Remember, we are not trying to make the argument in the stimulus valid— we are simply describing the method, and that method can be a flawed one!
Passage:
Tom: Implementing a four-day workweek would significantly increase worker productivity by 10x for all businesses. Studies have shown that employees are more focused and efficient when they have more time to rest and recharge. Additionally, companies that have tried the four-day workweek report higher employee satisfaction and lower turnover rates.
Sara: Your conclusion about the four-day workweek is overly optimistic. While it may lead to increased productivity for some workers, it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. For instance, businesses in customer service or industries requiring constant coverage may struggle with scheduling and maintaining service levels. Furthermore, the initial productivity boost may diminish over time as workers adjust to the new schedule.
Question:
Sara responds to Tom's argument by
(A) providing an alternative explanation for the same phenomenon Tom describes.
(B) presenting a counterexample to challenge the generalization in Tom's argument.
(C) disputing the reliability of the studies Tom cites.
(D) questioning the conclusion by suggesting that Tom's solution might not be feasible for all types of businesses.
(E) agreeing with Tom's premises but arguing that they do not support his conclusion.
Answer:
(D) questioning the conclusion by suggesting that Tom's solution might not be feasible for all types of businesses.
Sara acknowledges that the four-day workweek might increase productivity for some workers but argues that it is not universally applicable, particularly for businesses that require constant coverage. Sara believes Tom's conclusion goes beyond the evidence because he does not take into account that his solution might not be feasible for all types of businesses.
Wrong Choices:
(A) — Sara does not provide her own explanation
(B) — This answer choice is similar to (A); Sara however does not bring up her own counterexamples, but simply addresses Tom’s premises and assumptions
(C) — Sara does not question Tom’s evidence. We have no idea how reliable the studies are.
(E) — This one is a tricky one! It may seem like because Sara is arguing that Tom’s conclusion is overly optimistic Sara is arguing that the evidence Tom cites does not support his conclusion. But we’re going to be extra careful about the wording here. Sara argues Tom is going too overboard with his conclusion (10x increase, really?). The evidence still might support his conclusion to some degree, or maybe the conclusion just needs to be dialed down a bit (which is what Sara suggests in the answer).
To better understand the common method of reasoning arguments, make a few of your own! Go down the list and use each method to make an example argument yourself to understand how the structure of each technique works. (Just like we did for the flaw questions approach). Putting yourself in the shoes of the question-makers will force you to understand the question type at a fundamental level.
If you’d like to practice more method LSAT questions, you can also filter out and drill only method of reasoning questions directly on AdeptLR’s platform.
