Main content
Course: LSAT > Unit 1
Lesson 6: Logical Reasoning – Articles- Getting started with Logical Reasoning
- Introduction to arguments
- Catalog of question types
- Types of conclusions
- Types of evidence
- Types of flaws
- Identify the conclusion | Quick guide
- Identify the conclusion | Learn more
- Identify the conclusion | Examples
- Identify an entailment | Quick guide
- Identify an entailment | Learn more
- Strongly supported inferences | Quick guide
- Strongly supported inferences | Learn more
- Disputes | Quick guide
- Disputes | Learn more
- Identify the technique | Quick guide
- Identify the technique | Learn more
- Identify the role | Quick guide
- Identify the role | learn more
- Identify the principle | Quick guide
- Identify the principle | Learn more
- Match structure | Quick guide
- Match structure | Learn more
- Match principles | Quick guide
- Match principles | Learn more
- Identify a flaw | Quick guide
- Identify a flaw | Learn more
- Match a flaw | Quick guide
- Match a flaw | Learn more
- Necessary assumptions | Quick guide
- Necessary assumptions | Learn more
- Sufficient assumptions | Quick guide
- Sufficient assumptions | Learn more
- Strengthen and weaken | Quick guide
- Strengthen and weaken | Learn more
- Helpful to know | Quick guide
- Helpful to know | learn more
- Explain or resolve | Quick guide
- Explain or resolve | Learn more
© 2024 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice
Disputes | Learn more
Infer an issue in dispute
These questions involve two speakers who disagree about something. Sometimes, they draw similar conclusions but make opposing claims along the way. Other times, they draw opposing conclusions. Your task is to identify a point of disagreement.
How do we recognize Infer a Dispute questions?
To recognize these questions, look for language about “disagreements” and “points at issue”:
The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that Sarah and Paul disagree over whether
On the basis of their statements, Winchell and Trent are committed to disagreeing over whether
Example
Physician: There were approximately 83,400 trampoline-related injuries last year. This suggests that trampolines are quite dangerous and should therefore be used only under professional supervision.
Trampoline enthusiast: I disagree. In the past ten years sales of home trampolines have increased much more than trampoline-related injuries have: 260 percent in sales compared with 154 percent in injuries. Every exercise activity carries risks, even when carried out under professional supervision.
The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that the physician and the trampoline enthusiast disagree over whether
(A) trampolines cause injuries to a significant number of people using them
(B) home trampolines are the main source of trampoline-related injuries
(C) the rate of trampoline-related injuries, in terms of the number of injuries per trampoline user, is declining
(D) professional supervision of trampoline use tends to reduce the number of trampoline-related injuries
(E) trampoline use is an activity that warrants mandatory professional supervision
(B) home trampolines are the main source of trampoline-related injuries
(C) the rate of trampoline-related injuries, in terms of the number of injuries per trampoline user, is declining
(D) professional supervision of trampoline use tends to reduce the number of trampoline-related injuries
(E) trampoline use is an activity that warrants mandatory professional supervision
How might we tackle this question?
✓ Identify the conclusion and support of each speaker: A good way to start is to separate the argument's conclusion from its support.
Physician’s conclusion
- Trampolines should only be used only under professional supervision
because
Physician’s support
- There were approximately 83,400 trampoline-related injuries last year [and]
- This suggests that trampolines are quite dangerous.
Trampoline enthusiast’s conclusion
- I disagree (read: Trampolines should NOT only be used only under professional supervision).
because
Trampoline enthusiast’s support
- In the past ten years sales of home trampolines have increased much more than trampoline-related injuries have: 260 percent in sales compared with 154 percent in injuries.
- Every exercise activity carries risks, even when carried out under professional supervision.
Breaking down the logic of each argument makes it easier to compare them.
✓ Test each choice and take notes: You can mark each speaker’s initials next to each choice and note whether each speaker agrees, disagrees, or has no opinion. Many students like to use a +, -, or ? for their shorthand, but you can use whatever makes sense to you and is quick. If a speaker doesn’t have an opinion on the claim presented in the choice, you can immediately rule out that choice and move to the next one.
Sometimes, the topic won't lend itself to a "yes/no" or "agree/disagree", but rather a more specific opinion such as "more/less" or "well-prepared/ill-prepared." You can shorthand these ideas in the same way.
(A) trampolines cause injuries to a significant number of people using them
- Physician: Agree—the physician clearly believes that trampolines cause injuries to a significant number of people using them.
- Enthusiast: No opinion—careful here! When the enthusiast responds, “I disagree”, it’s not a disagreement of the evidence about how the rate of injury, it’s about whether professional supervision is necessary.
(B) home trampolines are the main source of trampoline-related injuries
- Physician: No opinion—we don’t know whether the physician believes that home trampolines are the main source of trampoline-related injuries (as opposed to public trampolines, for example).
(C) the rate of trampoline-related injuries, in terms of the number of injuries per trampoline user, is declining
- Physician: No opinion—the physician doesn’t address whether the rate of trampoline-related injuries is declining, staying the same, or increasing.
(D) professional supervision of trampoline use tends to reduce the number of trampoline-related injuries
- Physician: Agree—we can infer from the physician’s argument that the physician believes professional supervision would reduce the number of trampoline-related injuries
- Enthusiast: No opinion—the enthusiast doesn’t necessarily disagree with this claim, but rather believes that professional supervision isn’t necessary. The enthusiast focuses on arguing that risks are present even with professional supervision.
(E) trampoline use is an activity that warrants mandatory professional supervision
- Physician: Agree—the physician states this claim clearly in his or her conclusion.
- Enthusiast: Disagree—when the enthusiast states, “I disagree”, we see from the nature of the evidence that the enthusiast doesn’t believe that professional supervision is absolutely necessary.
(E) is the answer, because one of the speakers agrees and the other speaker disagrees with the claim presented in (E).
Summary
✓ Identify the conclusion and support of each speaker.
✓ Test each choice and take notes.
✓ Test each choice and take notes.
Common incorrect choices
Here are a few typical wrong choices:
- claims about which both speakers agree (if the question asks for a point of disagreement), or vice versa
- claims about which one or both speakers don’t have an opinion
Your turn!
Takeaways
- Two people cannot agree or disagree on a claim unless both speakers have an explicit or implicit opinion about that claim. We can’t just guess at what a speaker might believe.
- It can be helpful to mark a “+” or “-” or “?” and each speaker’s initials next to a choice in order to keep track of whether each speaker agrees, disagrees, or doesn’t have an opinion about that choice’s statement.
Want to join the conversation?
- For the first example about the physicians and enthusiasts, when enthusiasts mention that supervision would not reduce the risks, doesn't that statement mean that supervision would not reduce the number of trampolines injuries? I am thinking about Answer D.(10 votes)
- Yep-I got stuck on that one a bit too - but they disagree on the supervision of trampoline use - not on the rate of injuries due to no supervision.(5 votes)
- I'm slightly confused about the language of practice question 3, particularly when Goswami says the "majority (of the striking workers) make less than $20,000 per year." How is that not another way of stating what their average annual salary is? Just because it's using slightly different language ("per year" instead of "annual," and "most" instead of "average") doesn't mean it's not providing the same information. Unless I'm misunderstanding the dialogue?(3 votes)
- I thought it just meant that most of the workers there made less than 20k, but the overall average is higher than 20k. They're not claiming the same thing.(3 votes)
- What if total 100 worker, 80% earned $19000,20% earned $74000,the average annual salary $ 30000. Both Goswami and Nordecki are right: majority less than $20,000; average over $29,000.(4 votes)
- Any suggestions that may avoid having to go back to the stimulus while looking at the choices?(4 votes)
- So we are allowed to make inferences/assumptions for dispute questions? From my understanding we aren't able to make inferences/assumptions for strongly supported questions.
For example, in the Physician's & Trampoline enthusiast's question options, for option A: "trampolines cause injuries to a significant number of people using them," I put P? because the physician never says that he thinks it is a significant number, he just states what the number is in his stimulus. I still got the answer right, but I'm concerned about getting something wrong in the future for "implying" what I think someone's opinion means(1 vote) - I'm confused about Question 3. Goswami claims that he is supporting the workers striking and in the next sentence he mentions that it's because they're "underpaid." So why is the correct answer not B?(1 vote)
- I should think that by presenting statistics that numerically shows the average annual salary to be 29000, N indicates that he disagrees about the workers being underpaid. Whereas if payment is the issue, then G should say so or imply this way. Instead, we see no mentions or remote implications in G's argument that he has any opinion on the true substance of the strike(1 vote)