Here is a question that catches sharp people.
An argument has a small logical gap, an obvious one, and the stem asks you to
describe how the argument works.
So you go hunting for the flaw, you find it, you pick the answer that names the
weakness.
And you are wrong.
Not because you misread the argument, but because the question never asked you to
grade it.
Wait.
So the argument is flawed, I correctly spotted the flaw, and that gets me the wrong
answer?
That feels almost unfair.
It feels unfair because for eight episodes I trained you to attack the gap.
Today we put down the weapon, and I will show you exactly when picking up the weapon
costs you the point.
Quick recall first.
Back in Episode 1, what three pieces make up every argument?
Take a second.
Conclusion, premises, and the unstated assumption.
The claim, the support, and the bridge across the gap.
Hold that skeleton, because here is the shift.
Episodes 2 through 8 were all gap questions.
Assumption, strengthen, weaken, flaw.
Every one of them poked the bridge, asking what is missing or what is broken.
The three question types today refuse to touch the gap at all.
They ask you to describe the argument accurately, not improve it.
So in plain English, the test stops asking what is wrong with this and starts asking
what is this thing literally doing.
That is the whole episode in one sentence.
These are descriptive questions, sometimes called structure questions.
The right answer is simply true about the argument.
The wrong answers describe something the argument did not actually do.
You are a court reporter now, not the judge.
And that one idea, true versus did-not-happen, is the lever for all three types?
It is.
So here is your one objective.
By the end, you will look at a descriptive answer choice and decide in a few seconds
whether the argument actually did that, instead of whether it should have.
Three moves today.
Move one, name the move.
Move two, label the part.
Move three, locate the disagreement.
Method, Role, Point at Issue.
Move one is Method of Reasoning.
Also called Method of Argument, or Describe questions.
The stem sounds like, the argument proceeds by, or, the reasoning above does which
one of the following.
Your job is to name the move.
How did the author travel from premises to conclusion?
And there is a fixed menu of moves the LSAT reuses, right?
Not infinite?
A short menu.
Drawing an analogy between two cases.
Offering a counterexample to refute a claim.
Ruling out alternative explanations.
Appealing to a principle or general rule.
Appealing to an authority.
Drawing a distinction between two things.
Pointing out that an opposing view contradicts itself.
Learn the menu and you are most of the way there.
Here is my honest problem.
The answer choices never say offers a counterexample in plain words.
They say something like, refutes a generalization by adducing a particular instance,
and my eyes glaze over.
So that is your real skill on these.
Translate the dry phrasing back into a picture.
Picture this.
Someone says, nobody on our street recycles.
A neighbor walks over and says, the blue house puts out a blue bin every single
Tuesday.
That is it.
One house.
And that one house just sank the whole claim, because the claim said nobody.
That is the move, and notice it ties straight back to the skeleton.
Nobody recycles is a universal, all-or-nothing claim.
Its hidden assumption is that there are zero exceptions.
One genuine exception breaks that assumption, so one blue bin is logically enough to
kill the whole claim.
You do not need ten recyclers.
The mechanism is that a single case can defeat a universal.
So if the choice says the neighbor refutes the claim with a counterexample,
that is the move.
But could a wrong answer say the neighbor draws an analogy?
Constantly, and that is the most common trap on Method questions.
The wrong answer names a real, respectable reasoning move that simply did not happen
here.
There was no analogy.
No two cases were ever compared.
Drawing an analogy is a fine description of some other argument,
just not this one.
So here is the test-writer's whole game laid bare.
They build the trap from a move that sounds smarter than the one the author used.
Do not reward sophistication.
Pick the move the argument literally made.
Name the move, then check, did this argument actually make that move.
Sophistication is bait.
Move two zooms in.
Role of a statement.
PowerScore even files it under Method, argument part, which tells you something.
Role is just a zoomed-in Method question.
Instead of naming the whole argument's move, you name the job of one specific
sentence.
The stem quotes a sentence and asks, the claim that blank plays which one of the
following roles.
And what are the jobs a single sentence can have?
A small set.
A premise, which is support offered for something else.
The main conclusion, the central claim everything points to and which supports
nothing further.
A sub-conclusion, which we will hammer in a second.
A view the author is arguing against, an opposing position.
Or background, a phenomenon the argument is trying to explain.
Now here is the most important instruction in this whole segment.
Do not start by staring at the quoted sentence.
That is exactly what I want to do though.
They handed me the sentence, so I look at the sentence.
And that is the number one mistake on these.
You cannot name a part's job until you know the whole structure.
So first, find the main conclusion of the entire argument.
Use the Why Test from Episode 1.
Ask, what is the author ultimately trying to get me to believe,
and why.
Then map every other sentence to that conclusion.
Only then locate your quoted sentence on the map.
Find the whole skeleton first, then point at the bone they asked about.
Now the sub-conclusion, because this is where points die.
Picture this argument.
The bakery on Main Street must be doing well.
The line is out the door every morning, so it clearly has more customers than it can
seat.
And a business with more customers than seats is thriving.
Three claims.
Pause and try this before I answer.
Which one is the main conclusion?
It has more customers than it can seat.
That one has so in front of it, so it sounds like the conclusion.
I will commit.
That is the main conclusion.
Defend it.
Why that one?
Because the word so signals a conclusion, and it is drawn from the line being out
the door.
Premise, therefore conclusion.
It checks out.
And that is the trap snapping shut.
You are half right, which is what makes it dangerous.
That sentence is a conclusion, yes.
It is supported by the line out the door.
But run the second half of the test.
Does anything else in the argument lean on it?
Oh.
Yes.
More customers than seats supports the next claim, that the bakery is thriving,
which supports doing well.
So it is holding something up too.
So it is both.
Supported by the line, and supporting doing well.
A statement that receives support and gives support is a sub-conclusion.
An intermediate conclusion, same thing, two names.
The real main conclusion is the first sentence, the bakery must be doing well,
and notice it carries no indicator word at all.
This is exactly where I used to get burned.
The word so pulled me to the sub-conclusion, and the real main conclusion was
sitting in front with nothing flagging it.
Which is the carry-over warning from Episode 1.
Indicators are clues, not proof.
Therefore and so love to sit in front of a sub-conclusion, often the last sentence,
while the true main conclusion shows up earlier wearing no badge.
So the test out loud is two parts.
One, why does the author believe this.
If the support is elsewhere, it is a conclusion of some kind.
Two, does anything else lean on it.
If yes, sub-conclusion.
If it is the thing everything else leans on, main conclusion.
So once I know it is a sub-conclusion, how do I pick the right choice?
They word these so slipperily.
Use the Fact Test.
The correct answer must be provably, verifiably true of that sentence.
A single inaccuracy kills the whole choice, even if the rest is perfect.
But here is the reassurance, because students reject right answers for the wrong
reason.
The answer is allowed to be general.
If the choice says, it is an intermediate conclusion supported by evidence and used
to support a further claim, that is true even when it skips the specifics.
A divorce lawyer is still a lawyer.
Reject a choice only for being inaccurate, never for being broad.
Move three.
Point at Issue.
Also called Point of Disagreement, or Disagree questions.
Now you get two speakers in a little dialogue, and the stem uses very precise
official wording.
On the basis of their statements, speaker A and speaker B are committed to
disagreeing over whether.
Memorize that phrasing.
Committed to disagreeing over whether.
And committed is doing real work in that sentence, I assume?
It is everything.
Committed means the view follows from what they actually said,
not from what you imagine they would think.
The tool is the Disagreement Test.
Run it on every answer choice as a two-question filter.
One, does speaker A clearly hold a view on this statement, stated or implied.
Two, does speaker B clearly hold the opposite view.
Both must pass.
Picture this.
Two roommates and a thermostat.
One says, we should turn the heat down at night to save money.
The other says, turning it down at night actually costs more,
because the furnace works harder reheating in the morning.
So what do they disagree about?
Let me prephrase before looking at choices.
They both want to save money.
That is shared.
They split on whether turning the heat down at night actually saves money.
One says yes, one says no.
That is the split, clean and narrow.
And notice the disagreement is not their goal.
They agree on the goal.
It is one specific factual proposition buried inside a shared goal.
That is the recurring pattern the test exploits.
Speakers agree on almost everything and split on one small point,
so the right answer is usually that small point, never their broad topic.
So a tempting wrong answer might be, the household should try to save money.
They both affirm that, so it fails the test, because there is no opposite view.
Right, agreement is not disagreement.
But there is a deadlier trap, the single most common one on this whole question
type.
The silence trap.
Pause and judge this one yourself.
The answer choice says, the furnace in this apartment is old and inefficient.
Does that capture their disagreement?
I think it might.
The second roommate brought up the furnace working hard, so the furnace is clearly
the crux.
I will say yes, that is their disagreement.
And the trap closes again.
Run both prongs.
Speaker two implied the furnace works hard, fine.
But does speaker one say one word about the furnace being old or inefficient?
Not a word.
They are silent on it.
And you cannot infer disagreement from silence, because silence commits a speaker to
nothing.
No matter how on-topic the furnace feels, that answer is dead on the first prong.
So the rule I write on my hand is, no view stated equals no disagreement possible.
If either speaker is silent, cross it out, even when it is the most interesting line
on the page.
That is the whole game on Point at Issue.
The seductive wrong answer is almost always one only a single speaker actually
discussed.
Both must address the same proposition, and they must land on opposite sides of it.
Not different tone, not different emphasis.
Opposite views on the same claim.
And there is a mirror version of this too, isn't there?
Point of Agreement.
Less common, but real.
The stem flips to, committed to agreeing that.
Same machinery, except now you want the one statement both speakers would affirm.
Picture a coach and a parent.
They argue over how many days a week a kid should practice soccer,
but both clearly say the kid needs better sleep before games.
The days-per-week fight is the distractor.
The agreed point, better sleep, is the answer.
And the silence rule still applies on the agreement version.
If only the coach mentions something, it is out, because the parent never affirmed
it.
Silence kills the answer on both versions.
One extra warning for agreement questions.
Several choices will be things both speakers happen to agree on,
so your job is to find the one the text actually pins down for both,
not just the one that sounds agreeable.
Now the skill that actually wins the section.
Telling these three apart on the fly, because the test never labels them for you.
I will read a stem, you name the type and the very first thing you do.
Stem one.
The claim that the line is out the door every morning plays which one of the
following roles in the argument.
That is a Role question.
It quotes one specific sentence and asks for its job.
So my first move is not to look at that sentence.
First I find the main conclusion of the whole argument, then I place that line on
the map.
And that line, the line out the door, what job is it doing?
Pure support.
Nothing in the argument supports it, it only supports the sub-conclusion about more
customers than seats.
So it is a premise.
Bottom of the chain.
Stem two.
On the basis of their statements, the two roommates are committed to disagreeing
over whether.
Point at Issue.
Two speakers, the disagreeing-over-whether wording.
So I run the Disagreement Test on each choice, and before that I prephrase the
split, whether turning the heat down at night saves money.
Last one, your turn to finish it.
Stem three.
The argument proceeds by.
What type, and what is the single thing you watch out for?
Method of Reasoning.
Name the move.
And the thing I watch out for is the sophisticated-sounding answer that describes a
real reasoning move the argument never actually made.
I pick what it literally did, not what reads smartest.
Say why that last step works.
Why does literally did beat sounds smart?
Because these are descriptive questions.
The answer only has to be true of the argument.
A fancy description of a move that did not happen is false,
and false loses, no matter how impressive it reads.
So here is your heuristic, the thing to carry out the door.
On these three, you describe, you never fix.
Name the move, label the part, locate the disagreement.
Describe, never fix.
And the unifying check across all three is one question.
Did the argument actually do this.
If the answer describes something that did not happen in the text,
it is wrong, even when it is the smartest sentence on the page.
Which closes the loop on the cold open.
Remember the sharp test-taker who found the real flaw and still missed it?
They missed it because the stem said describe, and they answered grade.
The flaw was real.
It just was not the job the question asked about.
Describe, never fix.
And all three are really the same muscle.
Name the move, label the part, find the split.
They are just reading the skeleton, conclusion, premises, and the gap,
instead of reading the content.
That is the quotable line for today.
Stop reading what the argument is about, start reading how it is built.
That structure-reading muscle is the one every other question type quietly leans on
too.
This is the recall layer, so go drill Method, Role, and Point at Issue in the
question bank.
These types are won by pattern recognition, not by cleverness,
and they show up just often enough that recognizing them on sight protects easy
points.
One tiny thing before next time?
Between now and the next episode, here is your action.
Take any short argument you read this week, a tweet, an email,
a headline, and find the main conclusion first, then label one other sentence as
premise, sub-conclusion, or opposing view.
Out loud.
Thirty seconds.
Next episode we hit the last cluster, paradox, evaluate, and the rarer question
types, the ones that show up just often enough to wreck a score if they catch you by
surprise.