1
00:00:00,691 --> 00:00:03,540
Here is a question that catches sharp
people.

2
00:00:04,260 --> 00:00:09,610
An argument has a small logical gap, an
obvious one, and the stem asks you to

3
00:00:09,640 --> 00:00:11,720
describe how the argument works.

4
00:00:12,470 --> 00:00:17,160
So you go hunting for the flaw, you find
it, you pick the answer that names the

5
00:00:17,180 --> 00:00:17,580
weakness.

6
00:00:18,380 --> 00:00:19,240
And you are wrong.

7
00:00:20,020 --> 00:00:24,440
Not because you misread the argument, but
because the question never asked you to

8
00:00:24,480 --> 00:00:24,940
grade it.

9
00:00:26,362 --> 00:00:26,363
Wait.

10
00:00:26,552 --> 00:00:32,592
So the argument is flawed, I correctly
spotted the flaw, and that gets me the wrong

11
00:00:32,792 --> 00:00:33,152
answer?

12
00:00:34,142 --> 00:00:35,492
That feels almost unfair.

13
00:00:36,262 --> 00:00:41,622
It feels unfair because for eight episodes
I trained you to attack the gap.

14
00:00:42,582 --> 00:00:48,383
Today we put down the weapon, and I will
show you exactly when picking up the weapon

15
00:00:48,442 --> 00:00:50,103
costs you the point.

16
00:00:50,255 --> 00:00:51,164
Quick recall first.

17
00:00:52,164 --> 00:00:56,224
Back in Episode 1, what three pieces make
up every argument?

18
00:00:57,144 --> 00:00:57,614
Take a second.

19
00:00:58,492 --> 00:01:01,951
Conclusion, premises, and the unstated
assumption.

20
00:01:02,621 --> 00:01:06,901
The claim, the support, and the bridge
across the gap.

21
00:01:07,648 --> 00:01:10,098
Hold that skeleton, because here is the
shift.

22
00:01:11,038 --> 00:01:14,278
Episodes 2 through 8 were all gap
questions.

23
00:01:15,238 --> 00:01:19,918
Assumption, strengthen, weaken, flaw.

24
00:01:20,078 --> 00:01:24,938
Every one of them poked the bridge, asking
what is missing or what is broken.

25
00:01:25,818 --> 00:01:29,298
The three question types today refuse to
touch the gap at all.

26
00:01:30,098 --> 00:01:34,037
They ask you to describe the argument
accurately, not improve it.

27
00:01:34,601 --> 00:01:41,021
So in plain English, the test stops asking
what is wrong with this and starts asking

28
00:01:41,631 --> 00:01:43,691
what is this thing literally doing.

29
00:01:44,955 --> 00:01:47,184
That is the whole episode in one sentence.

30
00:01:47,884 --> 00:01:51,364
These are descriptive questions, sometimes
called structure questions.

31
00:01:51,974 --> 00:01:54,424
The right answer is simply true about the
argument.

32
00:01:54,934 --> 00:01:58,164
The wrong answers describe something the
argument did not actually do.

33
00:01:58,984 --> 00:02:01,344
You are a court reporter now, not the
judge.

34
00:02:02,078 --> 00:02:07,608
And that one idea, true versus
did-not-happen, is the lever for all three types?

35
00:02:09,346 --> 00:02:09,348
It is.

36
00:02:09,348 --> 00:02:10,758
So here is your one objective.

37
00:02:11,378 --> 00:02:15,878
By the end, you will look at a descriptive
answer choice and decide in a few seconds

38
00:02:15,897 --> 00:02:19,397
whether the argument actually did that,
instead of whether it should have.

39
00:02:20,157 --> 00:02:20,978
Three moves today.

40
00:02:21,698 --> 00:02:23,478
Move one, name the move.

41
00:02:24,277 --> 00:02:26,138
Move two, label the part.

42
00:02:26,918 --> 00:02:29,157
Move three, locate the disagreement.

43
00:02:29,978 --> 00:02:32,688
Method, Role, Point at Issue.

44
00:02:33,439 --> 00:02:35,568
Move one is Method of Reasoning.

45
00:02:35,577 --> 00:02:38,618
Also called Method of Argument, or
Describe questions.

46
00:02:39,408 --> 00:02:44,528
The stem sounds like, the argument
proceeds by, or, the reasoning above does which

47
00:02:44,648 --> 00:02:45,387
one of the following.

48
00:02:46,228 --> 00:02:47,748
Your job is to name the move.

49
00:02:48,408 --> 00:02:50,988
How did the author travel from premises to
conclusion?

50
00:02:51,749 --> 00:02:55,408
And there is a fixed menu of moves the
LSAT reuses, right?

51
00:02:55,458 --> 00:02:55,928
Not infinite?

52
00:02:57,987 --> 00:02:57,988
A short menu.

53
00:02:57,988 --> 00:03:00,478
Drawing an analogy between two cases.

54
00:03:00,578 --> 00:03:02,498
Offering a counterexample to refute a
claim.

55
00:03:03,258 --> 00:03:05,698
Ruling out alternative explanations.

56
00:03:05,758 --> 00:03:07,718
Appealing to a principle or general rule.

57
00:03:08,418 --> 00:03:10,158
Appealing to an authority.

58
00:03:10,218 --> 00:03:11,918
Drawing a distinction between two things.

59
00:03:12,718 --> 00:03:14,998
Pointing out that an opposing view
contradicts itself.

60
00:03:15,918 --> 00:03:18,028
Learn the menu and you are most of the way
there.

61
00:03:19,193 --> 00:03:20,942
Here is my honest problem.

62
00:03:21,462 --> 00:03:26,562
The answer choices never say offers a
counterexample in plain words.

63
00:03:27,142 --> 00:03:32,771
They say something like, refutes a
generalization by adducing a particular instance,

64
00:03:33,242 --> 00:03:35,602
and my eyes glaze over.

65
00:03:35,690 --> 00:03:37,870
So that is your real skill on these.

66
00:03:38,450 --> 00:03:41,450
Translate the dry phrasing back into a
picture.

67
00:03:42,150 --> 00:03:42,610
Picture this.

68
00:03:43,130 --> 00:03:45,870
Someone says, nobody on our street
recycles.

69
00:03:46,530 --> 00:03:51,170
A neighbor walks over and says, the blue
house puts out a blue bin every single

70
00:03:51,210 --> 00:03:51,620
Tuesday.

71
00:03:52,290 --> 00:03:52,710
That is it.

72
00:03:53,310 --> 00:03:54,060
One house.

73
00:03:54,713 --> 00:03:59,762
And that one house just sank the whole
claim, because the claim said nobody.

74
00:04:00,503 --> 00:04:04,242
That is the move, and notice it ties
straight back to the skeleton.

75
00:04:04,983 --> 00:04:08,582
Nobody recycles is a universal,
all-or-nothing claim.

76
00:04:09,223 --> 00:04:11,783
Its hidden assumption is that there are
zero exceptions.

77
00:04:12,622 --> 00:04:18,023
One genuine exception breaks that
assumption, so one blue bin is logically enough to

78
00:04:18,082 --> 00:04:19,582
kill the whole claim.

79
00:04:19,622 --> 00:04:21,183
You do not need ten recyclers.

80
00:04:21,823 --> 00:04:24,982
The mechanism is that a single case can
defeat a universal.

81
00:04:25,918 --> 00:04:29,748
So if the choice says the neighbor refutes
the claim with a counterexample,

82
00:04:30,118 --> 00:04:31,508
that is the move.

83
00:04:31,528 --> 00:04:35,288
But could a wrong answer say the neighbor
draws an analogy?

84
00:04:35,449 --> 00:04:39,789
Constantly, and that is the most common
trap on Method questions.

85
00:04:39,799 --> 00:04:44,169
The wrong answer names a real, respectable
reasoning move that simply did not happen

86
00:04:44,209 --> 00:04:45,109
here.

87
00:04:45,149 --> 00:04:46,729
There was no analogy.

88
00:04:46,869 --> 00:04:48,579
No two cases were ever compared.

89
00:04:49,379 --> 00:04:52,249
Drawing an analogy is a fine description
of some other argument,

90
00:04:52,649 --> 00:04:54,129
just not this one.

91
00:04:54,169 --> 00:04:57,269
So here is the test-writer's whole game
laid bare.

92
00:04:57,289 --> 00:05:00,849
They build the trap from a move that
sounds smarter than the one the author used.

93
00:05:01,629 --> 00:05:03,189
Do not reward sophistication.

94
00:05:03,789 --> 00:05:05,729
Pick the move the argument literally made.

95
00:05:06,593 --> 00:05:11,753
Name the move, then check, did this
argument actually make that move.

96
00:05:12,573 --> 00:05:14,233
Sophistication is bait.

97
00:05:14,656 --> 00:05:16,536
Move two zooms in.

98
00:05:17,376 --> 00:05:18,636
Role of a statement.

99
00:05:19,476 --> 00:05:24,156
PowerScore even files it under Method,
argument part, which tells you something.

100
00:05:24,976 --> 00:05:27,476
Role is just a zoomed-in Method question.

101
00:05:28,296 --> 00:05:32,856
Instead of naming the whole argument's
move, you name the job of one specific

102
00:05:33,016 --> 00:05:33,416
sentence.

103
00:05:34,236 --> 00:05:39,396
The stem quotes a sentence and asks, the
claim that blank plays which one of the

104
00:05:39,456 --> 00:05:40,196
following roles.

105
00:05:41,180 --> 00:05:43,610
And what are the jobs a single sentence
can have?

106
00:05:44,055 --> 00:05:44,805
A small set.

107
00:05:44,885 --> 00:05:48,525
A premise, which is support offered for
something else.

108
00:05:49,365 --> 00:05:53,985
The main conclusion, the central claim
everything points to and which supports

109
00:05:53,995 --> 00:05:55,525
nothing further.

110
00:05:55,535 --> 00:05:59,065
A sub-conclusion, which we will hammer in
a second.

111
00:05:59,105 --> 00:06:03,405
A view the author is arguing against, an
opposing position.

112
00:06:03,465 --> 00:06:06,825
Or background, a phenomenon the argument
is trying to explain.

113
00:06:07,825 --> 00:06:10,934
Now here is the most important instruction
in this whole segment.

114
00:06:11,815 --> 00:06:14,645
Do not start by staring at the quoted
sentence.

115
00:06:15,164 --> 00:06:17,853
That is exactly what I want to do though.

116
00:06:17,873 --> 00:06:20,633
They handed me the sentence, so I look at
the sentence.

117
00:06:21,117 --> 00:06:23,347
And that is the number one mistake on
these.

118
00:06:24,088 --> 00:06:27,617
You cannot name a part's job until you
know the whole structure.

119
00:06:28,407 --> 00:06:31,948
So first, find the main conclusion of the
entire argument.

120
00:06:32,747 --> 00:06:34,508
Use the Why Test from Episode 1.

121
00:06:35,148 --> 00:06:38,088
Ask, what is the author ultimately trying
to get me to believe,

122
00:06:38,568 --> 00:06:39,066
and why.

123
00:06:39,948 --> 00:06:42,688
Then map every other sentence to that
conclusion.

124
00:06:43,588 --> 00:06:46,648
Only then locate your quoted sentence on
the map.

125
00:06:47,307 --> 00:06:51,327
Find the whole skeleton first, then point
at the bone they asked about.

126
00:06:52,471 --> 00:06:56,270
Now the sub-conclusion, because this is
where points die.

127
00:06:57,040 --> 00:06:57,999
Picture this argument.

128
00:06:58,850 --> 00:07:01,410
The bakery on Main Street must be doing
well.

129
00:07:02,100 --> 00:07:06,630
The line is out the door every morning, so
it clearly has more customers than it can

130
00:07:06,700 --> 00:07:07,500
seat.

131
00:07:07,560 --> 00:07:10,920
And a business with more customers than
seats is thriving.

132
00:07:11,740 --> 00:07:12,360
Three claims.

133
00:07:13,160 --> 00:07:15,020
Pause and try this before I answer.

134
00:07:15,880 --> 00:07:17,720
Which one is the main conclusion?

135
00:07:18,428 --> 00:07:20,727
It has more customers than it can seat.

136
00:07:21,418 --> 00:07:25,968
That one has so in front of it, so it
sounds like the conclusion.

137
00:07:26,108 --> 00:07:27,048
I will commit.

138
00:07:27,168 --> 00:07:28,347
That is the main conclusion.

139
00:07:29,086 --> 00:07:29,595
Defend it.

140
00:07:29,875 --> 00:07:30,375
Why that one?

141
00:07:31,204 --> 00:07:35,954
Because the word so signals a conclusion,
and it is drawn from the line being out

142
00:07:35,984 --> 00:07:37,044
the door.

143
00:07:37,144 --> 00:07:38,844
Premise, therefore conclusion.

144
00:07:39,424 --> 00:07:40,164
It checks out.

145
00:07:40,844 --> 00:07:43,073
And that is the trap snapping shut.

146
00:07:43,733 --> 00:07:46,093
You are half right, which is what makes it
dangerous.

147
00:07:46,893 --> 00:07:48,873
That sentence is a conclusion, yes.

148
00:07:49,333 --> 00:07:51,073
It is supported by the line out the door.

149
00:07:51,673 --> 00:07:53,273
But run the second half of the test.

150
00:07:53,873 --> 00:07:56,093
Does anything else in the argument lean on
it?

151
00:07:57,604 --> 00:07:57,624
Oh.

152
00:07:57,714 --> 00:07:58,114
Yes.

153
00:07:58,894 --> 00:08:03,634
More customers than seats supports the
next claim, that the bakery is thriving,

154
00:08:04,234 --> 00:08:05,774
which supports doing well.

155
00:08:06,494 --> 00:08:08,184
So it is holding something up too.

156
00:08:08,820 --> 00:08:09,819
So it is both.

157
00:08:10,409 --> 00:08:13,019
Supported by the line, and supporting
doing well.

158
00:08:13,889 --> 00:08:17,629
A statement that receives support and
gives support is a sub-conclusion.

159
00:08:18,209 --> 00:08:20,869
An intermediate conclusion, same thing,
two names.

160
00:08:21,729 --> 00:08:26,239
The real main conclusion is the first
sentence, the bakery must be doing well,

161
00:08:26,949 --> 00:08:29,689
and notice it carries no indicator word at
all.

162
00:08:31,071 --> 00:08:33,500
This is exactly where I used to get
burned.

163
00:08:33,989 --> 00:08:38,710
The word so pulled me to the
sub-conclusion, and the real main conclusion was

164
00:08:38,800 --> 00:08:41,260
sitting in front with nothing flagging it.

165
00:08:41,676 --> 00:08:44,396
Which is the carry-over warning from
Episode 1.

166
00:08:44,456 --> 00:08:46,756
Indicators are clues, not proof.

167
00:08:47,516 --> 00:08:52,356
Therefore and so love to sit in front of a
sub-conclusion, often the last sentence,

168
00:08:52,856 --> 00:08:56,176
while the true main conclusion shows up
earlier wearing no badge.

169
00:08:56,896 --> 00:08:58,656
So the test out loud is two parts.

170
00:08:59,416 --> 00:09:01,596
One, why does the author believe this.

171
00:09:02,276 --> 00:09:05,256
If the support is elsewhere, it is a
conclusion of some kind.

172
00:09:06,116 --> 00:09:08,836
Two, does anything else lean on it.

173
00:09:08,896 --> 00:09:10,326
If yes, sub-conclusion.

174
00:09:11,136 --> 00:09:14,796
If it is the thing everything else leans
on, main conclusion.

175
00:09:16,690 --> 00:09:19,700
So once I know it is a sub-conclusion, how
do I pick the right choice?

176
00:09:20,060 --> 00:09:21,879
They word these so slipperily.

177
00:09:23,108 --> 00:09:24,017
Use the Fact Test.

178
00:09:24,577 --> 00:09:29,197
The correct answer must be provably,
verifiably true of that sentence.

179
00:09:29,357 --> 00:09:33,977
A single inaccuracy kills the whole
choice, even if the rest is perfect.

180
00:09:33,997 --> 00:09:37,997
But here is the reassurance, because
students reject right answers for the wrong

181
00:09:38,017 --> 00:09:39,137
reason.

182
00:09:39,177 --> 00:09:40,877
The answer is allowed to be general.

183
00:09:41,657 --> 00:09:46,107
If the choice says, it is an intermediate
conclusion supported by evidence and used

184
00:09:46,137 --> 00:09:50,397
to support a further claim, that is true
even when it skips the specifics.

185
00:09:51,217 --> 00:09:53,257
A divorce lawyer is still a lawyer.

186
00:09:54,057 --> 00:09:57,837
Reject a choice only for being inaccurate,
never for being broad.

187
00:09:59,567 --> 00:09:59,568
Move three.

188
00:09:59,717 --> 00:10:00,657
Point at Issue.

189
00:10:01,377 --> 00:10:04,537
Also called Point of Disagreement, or
Disagree questions.

190
00:10:05,457 --> 00:10:09,637
Now you get two speakers in a little
dialogue, and the stem uses very precise

191
00:10:09,717 --> 00:10:10,517
official wording.

192
00:10:11,337 --> 00:10:15,337
On the basis of their statements, speaker
A and speaker B are committed to

193
00:10:15,377 --> 00:10:16,797
disagreeing over whether.

194
00:10:17,797 --> 00:10:18,747
Memorize that phrasing.

195
00:10:19,197 --> 00:10:21,447
Committed to disagreeing over whether.

196
00:10:22,308 --> 00:10:26,197
And committed is doing real work in that
sentence, I assume?

197
00:10:26,894 --> 00:10:28,114
It is everything.

198
00:10:28,614 --> 00:10:32,584
Committed means the view follows from what
they actually said,

199
00:10:33,074 --> 00:10:35,914
not from what you imagine they would
think.

200
00:10:35,974 --> 00:10:38,534
The tool is the Disagreement Test.

201
00:10:38,614 --> 00:10:42,014
Run it on every answer choice as a
two-question filter.

202
00:10:42,734 --> 00:10:47,354
One, does speaker A clearly hold a view on
this statement, stated or implied.

203
00:10:48,154 --> 00:10:52,114
Two, does speaker B clearly hold the
opposite view.

204
00:10:52,794 --> 00:10:53,834
Both must pass.

205
00:10:55,034 --> 00:10:55,954
Picture this.

206
00:10:56,014 --> 00:10:58,074
Two roommates and a thermostat.

207
00:10:58,194 --> 00:11:01,914
One says, we should turn the heat down at
night to save money.

208
00:11:02,014 --> 00:11:05,714
The other says, turning it down at night
actually costs more,

209
00:11:05,734 --> 00:11:09,093
because the furnace works harder reheating
in the morning.

210
00:11:10,572 --> 00:11:11,492
So what do they disagree about?

211
00:11:12,042 --> 00:11:14,682
Let me prephrase before looking at
choices.

212
00:11:14,782 --> 00:11:16,382
They both want to save money.

213
00:11:16,442 --> 00:11:17,721
That is shared.

214
00:11:17,812 --> 00:11:23,202
They split on whether turning the heat
down at night actually saves money.

215
00:11:23,242 --> 00:11:24,922
One says yes, one says no.

216
00:11:25,897 --> 00:11:28,267
That is the split, clean and narrow.

217
00:11:28,907 --> 00:11:31,767
And notice the disagreement is not their
goal.

218
00:11:31,857 --> 00:11:32,947
They agree on the goal.

219
00:11:33,607 --> 00:11:38,247
It is one specific factual proposition
buried inside a shared goal.

220
00:11:38,807 --> 00:11:42,207
That is the recurring pattern the test
exploits.

221
00:11:42,307 --> 00:11:46,967
Speakers agree on almost everything and
split on one small point,

222
00:11:47,507 --> 00:11:52,217
so the right answer is usually that small
point, never their broad topic.

223
00:11:53,401 --> 00:11:57,821
So a tempting wrong answer might be, the
household should try to save money.

224
00:11:58,571 --> 00:12:03,311
They both affirm that, so it fails the
test, because there is no opposite view.

225
00:12:04,449 --> 00:12:07,298
Right, agreement is not disagreement.

226
00:12:08,098 --> 00:12:13,138
But there is a deadlier trap, the single
most common one on this whole question

227
00:12:13,148 --> 00:12:13,388
type.

228
00:12:14,168 --> 00:12:15,398
The silence trap.

229
00:12:16,278 --> 00:12:18,698
Pause and judge this one yourself.

230
00:12:18,738 --> 00:12:23,718
The answer choice says, the furnace in
this apartment is old and inefficient.

231
00:12:24,598 --> 00:12:26,218
Does that capture their disagreement?

232
00:12:26,988 --> 00:12:27,948
I think it might.

233
00:12:28,558 --> 00:12:32,588
The second roommate brought up the furnace
working hard, so the furnace is clearly

234
00:12:32,647 --> 00:12:33,168
the crux.

235
00:12:33,828 --> 00:12:37,108
I will say yes, that is their
disagreement.

236
00:12:37,179 --> 00:12:38,828
And the trap closes again.

237
00:12:39,748 --> 00:12:40,978
Run both prongs.

238
00:12:41,588 --> 00:12:44,128
Speaker two implied the furnace works
hard, fine.

239
00:12:44,868 --> 00:12:49,608
But does speaker one say one word about
the furnace being old or inefficient?

240
00:12:50,368 --> 00:12:51,188
Not a word.

241
00:12:51,768 --> 00:12:52,928
They are silent on it.

242
00:12:53,368 --> 00:12:58,608
And you cannot infer disagreement from
silence, because silence commits a speaker to

243
00:12:58,708 --> 00:12:59,058
nothing.

244
00:12:59,888 --> 00:13:05,348
No matter how on-topic the furnace feels,
that answer is dead on the first prong.

245
00:13:06,422 --> 00:13:11,652
So the rule I write on my hand is, no view
stated equals no disagreement possible.

246
00:13:12,272 --> 00:13:16,752
If either speaker is silent, cross it out,
even when it is the most interesting line

247
00:13:16,772 --> 00:13:17,272
on the page.

248
00:13:18,238 --> 00:13:20,248
That is the whole game on Point at Issue.

249
00:13:20,988 --> 00:13:26,388
The seductive wrong answer is almost
always one only a single speaker actually

250
00:13:26,398 --> 00:13:27,528
discussed.

251
00:13:27,728 --> 00:13:33,428
Both must address the same proposition,
and they must land on opposite sides of it.

252
00:13:33,488 --> 00:13:35,928
Not different tone, not different
emphasis.

253
00:13:36,768 --> 00:13:38,948
Opposite views on the same claim.

254
00:13:39,590 --> 00:13:42,009
And there is a mirror version of this too,
isn't there?

255
00:13:43,014 --> 00:13:44,323
Point of Agreement.

256
00:13:44,463 --> 00:13:45,703
Less common, but real.

257
00:13:46,323 --> 00:13:49,323
The stem flips to, committed to agreeing
that.

258
00:13:50,043 --> 00:13:54,523
Same machinery, except now you want the
one statement both speakers would affirm.

259
00:13:55,203 --> 00:13:56,723
Picture a coach and a parent.

260
00:13:57,193 --> 00:14:00,513
They argue over how many days a week a kid
should practice soccer,

261
00:14:00,983 --> 00:14:04,433
but both clearly say the kid needs better
sleep before games.

262
00:14:05,103 --> 00:14:07,143
The days-per-week fight is the distractor.

263
00:14:07,703 --> 00:14:10,403
The agreed point, better sleep, is the
answer.

264
00:14:11,101 --> 00:14:14,251
And the silence rule still applies on the
agreement version.

265
00:14:14,661 --> 00:14:19,261
If only the coach mentions something, it
is out, because the parent never affirmed

266
00:14:19,301 --> 00:14:19,441
it.

267
00:14:20,119 --> 00:14:22,439
Silence kills the answer on both versions.

268
00:14:23,199 --> 00:14:24,979
One extra warning for agreement questions.

269
00:14:25,659 --> 00:14:28,989
Several choices will be things both
speakers happen to agree on,

270
00:14:29,479 --> 00:14:33,339
so your job is to find the one the text
actually pins down for both,

271
00:14:33,919 --> 00:14:35,539
not just the one that sounds agreeable.

272
00:14:36,675 --> 00:14:38,985
Now the skill that actually wins the
section.

273
00:14:39,595 --> 00:14:44,255
Telling these three apart on the fly,
because the test never labels them for you.

274
00:14:44,265 --> 00:14:49,015
I will read a stem, you name the type and
the very first thing you do.

275
00:14:49,175 --> 00:14:49,595
Stem one.

276
00:14:50,435 --> 00:14:54,495
The claim that the line is out the door
every morning plays which one of the

277
00:14:54,535 --> 00:14:56,575
following roles in the argument.

278
00:14:56,600 --> 00:14:58,509
That is a Role question.

279
00:14:58,549 --> 00:15:01,689
It quotes one specific sentence and asks
for its job.

280
00:15:02,129 --> 00:15:05,169
So my first move is not to look at that
sentence.

281
00:15:05,209 --> 00:15:10,089
First I find the main conclusion of the
whole argument, then I place that line on

282
00:15:10,109 --> 00:15:11,129
the map.

283
00:15:11,289 --> 00:15:14,708
And that line, the line out the door, what
job is it doing?

284
00:15:15,558 --> 00:15:17,018
Pure support.

285
00:15:17,238 --> 00:15:21,748
Nothing in the argument supports it, it
only supports the sub-conclusion about more

286
00:15:21,798 --> 00:15:22,828
customers than seats.

287
00:15:23,418 --> 00:15:24,248
So it is a premise.

288
00:15:24,758 --> 00:15:26,078
Bottom of the chain.

289
00:15:26,225 --> 00:15:27,894
Stem two.

290
00:15:27,954 --> 00:15:32,774
On the basis of their statements, the two
roommates are committed to disagreeing

291
00:15:32,854 --> 00:15:33,424
over whether.

292
00:15:34,354 --> 00:15:35,734
Point at Issue.

293
00:15:35,814 --> 00:15:38,774
Two speakers, the disagreeing-over-whether
wording.

294
00:15:39,414 --> 00:15:44,254
So I run the Disagreement Test on each
choice, and before that I prephrase the

295
00:15:44,294 --> 00:15:47,884
split, whether turning the heat down at
night saves money.

296
00:15:48,768 --> 00:15:50,757
Last one, your turn to finish it.

297
00:15:51,458 --> 00:15:52,078
Stem three.

298
00:15:52,877 --> 00:15:54,757
The argument proceeds by.

299
00:15:55,637 --> 00:15:58,757
What type, and what is the single thing
you watch out for?

300
00:15:59,768 --> 00:16:00,877
Method of Reasoning.

301
00:16:01,537 --> 00:16:02,457
Name the move.

302
00:16:02,947 --> 00:16:07,007
And the thing I watch out for is the
sophisticated-sounding answer that describes a

303
00:16:07,217 --> 00:16:10,557
real reasoning move the argument never
actually made.

304
00:16:11,177 --> 00:16:14,497
I pick what it literally did, not what
reads smartest.

305
00:16:15,343 --> 00:16:16,943
Say why that last step works.

306
00:16:17,543 --> 00:16:20,483
Why does literally did beat sounds smart?

307
00:16:20,917 --> 00:16:23,806
Because these are descriptive questions.

308
00:16:23,846 --> 00:16:26,526
The answer only has to be true of the
argument.

309
00:16:27,046 --> 00:16:30,346
A fancy description of a move that did not
happen is false,

310
00:16:30,786 --> 00:16:33,845
and false loses, no matter how impressive
it reads.

311
00:16:34,606 --> 00:16:38,426
So here is your heuristic, the thing to
carry out the door.

312
00:16:38,526 --> 00:16:41,786
On these three, you describe, you never
fix.

313
00:16:42,426 --> 00:16:46,445
Name the move, label the part, locate the
disagreement.

314
00:16:46,466 --> 00:16:48,266
Describe, never fix.

315
00:16:49,162 --> 00:16:53,271
And the unifying check across all three is
one question.

316
00:16:53,851 --> 00:16:56,151
Did the argument actually do this.

317
00:16:56,691 --> 00:16:59,911
If the answer describes something that did
not happen in the text,

318
00:17:00,331 --> 00:17:04,431
it is wrong, even when it is the smartest
sentence on the page.

319
00:17:05,256 --> 00:17:06,865
Which closes the loop on the cold open.

320
00:17:07,625 --> 00:17:12,165
Remember the sharp test-taker who found
the real flaw and still missed it?

321
00:17:12,175 --> 00:17:17,344
They missed it because the stem said
describe, and they answered grade.

322
00:17:17,355 --> 00:17:18,245
The flaw was real.

323
00:17:18,804 --> 00:17:21,125
It just was not the job the question asked
about.

324
00:17:21,985 --> 00:17:23,845
Describe, never fix.

325
00:17:24,612 --> 00:17:27,421
And all three are really the same muscle.

326
00:17:27,521 --> 00:17:30,881
Name the move, label the part, find the
split.

327
00:17:30,911 --> 00:17:35,181
They are just reading the skeleton,
conclusion, premises, and the gap,

328
00:17:35,641 --> 00:17:37,281
instead of reading the content.

329
00:17:38,270 --> 00:17:39,790
That is the quotable line for today.

330
00:17:40,640 --> 00:17:45,060
Stop reading what the argument is about,
start reading how it is built.

331
00:17:46,000 --> 00:17:50,480
That structure-reading muscle is the one
every other question type quietly leans on

332
00:17:50,540 --> 00:17:51,660
too.

333
00:17:51,700 --> 00:17:56,160
This is the recall layer, so go drill
Method, Role, and Point at Issue in the

334
00:17:56,200 --> 00:17:56,720
question bank.

335
00:17:57,640 --> 00:18:00,720
These types are won by pattern
recognition, not by cleverness,

336
00:18:01,540 --> 00:18:05,480
and they show up just often enough that
recognizing them on sight protects easy

337
00:18:05,500 --> 00:18:05,820
points.

338
00:18:06,995 --> 00:18:08,494
One tiny thing before next time?

339
00:18:09,193 --> 00:18:12,143
Between now and the next episode, here is
your action.

340
00:18:12,993 --> 00:18:16,753
Take any short argument you read this
week, a tweet, an email,

341
00:18:17,133 --> 00:18:22,713
a headline, and find the main conclusion
first, then label one other sentence as

342
00:18:22,793 --> 00:18:25,273
premise, sub-conclusion, or opposing view.

343
00:18:26,053 --> 00:18:26,473
Out loud.

344
00:18:27,313 --> 00:18:27,983
Thirty seconds.

345
00:18:28,913 --> 00:18:34,463
Next episode we hit the last cluster,
paradox, evaluate, and the rarer question

346
00:18:34,533 --> 00:18:38,823
types, the ones that show up just often
enough to wreck a score if they catch you by

347
00:18:38,833 --> 00:18:39,333
surprise.