A cafe raised its coffee prices last month.
Same number of cups sold as before.
And yet total coffee revenue went down.
Under the clock, most test-takers grab the answer that says the price hike scared
customers off.
That answer feels right, and it is wrong, for a reason that will save you points all
over this section.
Hold on.
Prices up, same number of cups, but revenue down?
Charge more for the same number of cups and you make more money.
That should be flat impossible.
Should be.
That itch you just felt, the sense that these cannot all be true at once,
is the entire game today.
Hold the cafe.
We solve it before the end, and the answer is not what your gut just said.
Quick retrieval from Episode 1 first.
The argument skeleton.
What are the three parts?
Take a beat, answer before I do.
Conclusion, the main claim.
Premises, the support.
And the assumption, the unstated bridge across the gap between them.
And we said the LSAT lives in that gap, so most question types are just different
ways of poking the assumption.
Strengthen, weaken, flaw, necessary assumption, all of them prod the same bridge.
Here is the twist.
Two of the three types today do not poke an assumption at all,
and confusing them is exactly where people bleed points.
So I cannot just run my usual find-the-conclusion, find-the-gap routine on
everything?
Not blindly.
Picture three doors.
Door one, Paradox, has no conclusion at all.
It is two facts glaring at each other, and your job is to make peace,
not pick a winner.
Door two, Evaluate, does still live in the gap, but the answer is a question,
not a statement.
Door three, Cannot Be True, is pure inference.
There is no argument to attack.
Same hallway, three different rooms, and the most expensive mistake is forcing all
three into the assumption frame.
So the first move is not solving.
It is figuring out which door I am standing in front of.
That is the objective.
By the end of this episode, you read the stem of any of these rare types and name
the type plus its one job in under ten seconds.
Three moves today.
Move one, Paradox and the make-both-true tool.
Move two, Evaluate and the variable test.
Move three, a fast tour of the rare stems so none of them surprise you.
Door one.
Here is the definition I want lodged in your head.
A paradox is two facts that seem to fight, and your job is to make peace,
not pick a winner.
Nora, say it back, but tell me what the right answer actually is.
The right answer is a new fact.
A new fact that lets both of the original facts stay true at the same time.
It never says one of them is false.
It does not pick a side, it reconciles them.
That is the whole tool.
We call it make both true.
Now the stem.
Watch for explain, resolve, reconcile, paradox, discrepancy,
conflict, and almost always the phrase if true.
That if true is a gift.
It tells you to accept the answer choice as a fresh given, a new piece of the world
you assume is real.
You are not judging whether it is plausible.
So I am handed the answer choice as a fact and asked only, does this fact make the
two weird things click together.
That framing keeps you out of the most common trap, where people argue with the
answer choice instead of using it.
Back to the cafe.
Picture it.
Same line out the door, same number of cups crossing the counter,
the menu board shows higher prices, and the till at the end of the month is lighter.
Fact one, prices up.
Fact two, revenue down.
Why would both be true at once?
My gut still wants fewer customers.
But we are told the same number of cups sold, so that is dead.
Same cups, higher price, less money.
Stay in the gap between those two facts.
What did we never specify?
The size.
We counted cups, not dollars per cup.
So if everyone switched from the large to the small after the price hike,
you sell the same number of cups but each one brings in less,
and total revenue drops.
Both facts survive.
Now self-explain.
Say why that move resolves it and a denial would not.
Because the size switch leaves prices up and leaves revenue down.
It adds a new fact between them.
A denial, like saying prices did not really rise, would just delete one of the facts
I was told to keep.
The test wants both standing.
Compress it to a heuristic.
A paradox answer is the missing puzzle piece that lets both stubborn facts stay
standing.
It explains, it never denies.
Now the traps, because paradox is where careful readers still get robbed.
Run every answer through three checks.
Check one, is it a new fact, not just a restatement?
Check two, does it make both facts make sense together?
Check three, does it avoid contradicting anything already stated?
Lock them in.
New fact.
Bridges both sides.
Does not contradict the stimulus.
New, both, no contradiction.
Second example, contrasting on purpose, and I want you to fall into the trap.
A town installed much brighter streetlights to cut nighttime accidents.
The next year, nighttime accidents rose.
Answer A, the brighter lights made the streets much easier to see at night.
Answer B, the brighter lights drew far more foot and bike traffic after dark.
Pick one and defend it.
I take A.
Easier to see is clearly about the lights and the accidents,
so it is on topic, and it explains why the town expected the lights to help.
It fits the story cleanly.
A.
That confident pick is the trap, so watch the mechanism.
We need to explain why accidents went up despite the lights.
A says streets are easier to see.
Easier to see should mean fewer accidents, not more.
So A does not reconcile the two facts.
A deepens the paradox.
It makes the conflict harder to believe, because now the lights should have worked
and accidents still climbed.
Oh.
I picked the one that makes it worse because it sounded related.
So related is not the same as resolving.
That is the single most expensive paradox mistake, and now you will feel it coming.
The fix is a re-ask after you pick.
Does this make it easier or harder to believe both facts?
Answer B passes.
Brighter lights drew far more people out after dark, so more bikes and pedestrians,
so more chances for a collision.
Lights are bright, accidents rose, both true, because there are simply more people
out there.
So both examples share the same shape.
The cafe and the streetlights each looked impossible until a hidden variable showed
up, size in one, foot traffic in the other.
The right answer is always the variable nobody mentioned.
That is the transfer I wanted you to abstract.
And notice what was absent in both.
No conclusion, no assumption to attack.
Two facts, one hidden bridge.
The test writer builds the deepens trap betting you grab familiar over functional.
Door one, closed.
Door two, Evaluate.
Frame it as a question about questions.
Which question, once answered, would most help you judge this argument?
Here is the part that throws people.
The correct answer choice is usually itself phrased as a question.
That feels backwards.
So I am not hunting for a statement that strengthens or weakens.
I am hunting for a question, and the right question is the one whose answer would
tell me whether the argument holds up.
And people who forget that scan for a normal declarative and get lost.
Now the tool.
Picture the candidate question with its two opposite possible answers,
a yes and a no, or a high and a low.
If one answer would strengthen the argument and the opposite would weaken it,
that question is your choice.
If both answers leave the argument equally good or bad, the question is irrelevant,
and it is wrong.
PowerScore brands this the variance test, but the idea is universal,
so I will just call it the variable test.
So the right question is a lever.
Push it one way and the argument gets stronger, push it the other way and it falls
apart.
A useless question does not move it at all.
Hold that lever.
Make it concrete.
Someone argues that a new office plant policy boosted productivity,
because output rose the month right after the plants went in.
I voice the candidate question.
Did the company also change anything else that month, like deadlines or staffing?
Run the variable test out loud.
If the answer is yes, they also moved deadlines up, then maybe the deadlines caused
the bump, not the plants, so the argument weakens.
If the answer is no, nothing else changed, then the plants are the best explanation
left, so the argument strengthens.
Yes weakens, no strengthens.
Opposite directions, so that is a real Evaluate answer.
Now a dud, so you can feel the contrast.
What species of plant did they use?
Run it.
If it is a fern, productivity went up.
If it is a cactus, productivity went up.
Neither pole touches whether plants caused the bump.
The argument sits there unmoved, so that question fails the test.
Now self-explain the why.
What made the first question pivotal and the species question dead?
The first one targets the assumption, that the plants and not some other change
caused the bump.
The species question never touches that assumption, so no answer to it can swing
anything.
Evaluate still lives in the gap, it just hands me a question instead of a statement.
That is the link back to Episode 1, said in your own words.
One efficiency rule, because the variable test is laborious.
Do not run it on all five.
First throw out the plainly off-topic choices, the species junk,
then test only your one or two contenders.
Honesty about frequency before the tour.
Evaluate is genuinely rare.
You might see one on a test, you might see none.
Cannot Be True is rare too.
This is a recall layer, so your win is fast recognition, not grinding twenty of
each.
Spend bank practice proportionally.
Door three, the inference rooms.
But first, an interleaving drill, because spotting the type is the actual skill.
Hit me with a stimulus and let me name the door before I solve.
Here it is, no stem yet.
Every member of the hiking club has summited Mount Rainier.
No one who has summited Rainier is afraid of heights.
Those are the only facts.
Before you touch an answer, which of today's three doors is this,
and how do you know?
It is not Paradox, the two facts do not fight, they stack.
There is no conclusion and no because, so it is not Evaluate either.
It is just facts you can chain.
That is the inference door.
So this is heading for Cannot Be True or a Must Be True cousin.
That discrimination is the move, and most students skip it and start solving the
wrong way.
Now the stem arrives.
Cannot Be True.
And first, kill the worst confusion in this episode.
Cannot Be True is not a weaken question.
It is the mirror of Must Be True, a pure inference task.
You are not attacking an argument.
You are finding the one statement the facts make impossible.
The correct answer must be false.
And the profile inverts.
So the four wrong answers each could be true, consistent with the facts,
and the one right answer is the one that contradicts them.
Which is the part that trips me.
I see an answer that contradicts the stimulus and I cross it out,
thinking contradiction means wrong.
And that reflex is exactly why you would miss it.
On Cannot Be True, contradicting the stimulus is what makes an answer correct.
Pause and try this one before I solve it.
Which cannot be true?
That Sam is a club member who is afraid of heights, or that Sam is a club member who
climbs every weekend?
Chain it.
Sam is a member, so Sam summited Rainier.
Anyone who summited Rainier is not afraid of heights, so Sam is not afraid of
heights.
So a club member afraid of heights cannot be true.
The weekend climber one could be true, the facts say nothing against it.
Conditional chains and contrapositives are your tools there,
and you used the chain straight through.
Last stem, fill in the blank.
The stimulus ends in a blank and the stem says, which most logically completes the
argument.
Here is the trap.
People treat it as one fixed skill.
It is not.
It is a format, and the blank's job depends on the sentence right before it.
It is also the most common of the rare-looking stems we have covered,
so it is worth real attention.
So how do I tell which mode I am in?
Read the word before the blank.
After because or since, the blank is the missing support, so it behaves like
Strengthen.
Otherwise it usually behaves like most strongly supported, a soft inference.
And that word most, in most logically completes, signals soft,
so you do not need airtight proof, just the best-supported completion.
Picture this.
The new bridge cut the average commute by twenty minutes, and surveys show drivers
are happier, therefore the city should blank.
No because there, so you want the conclusion best supported by those two facts,
not an ironclad one.
Lightning round, because this episode is about recognition.
I give the stem, you name the type and its one-line job.
Stem one.
Which one, if true, most helps to explain the apparent discrepancy above?
Paradox.
Job, find the new fact that makes both facts true at once.
Make both true.
Stem two.
The answer to which one of the following questions most helps in evaluating the
argument?
Evaluate.
Job, find the question whose two opposite answers swing the argument in opposite
directions.
The variable test.
Stem three.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following cannot be true?
Cannot Be True, also called Must Be False.
Job, find the one statement the facts make impossible.
It is inference, not weaken.
And a terminology note so LSAC's wording never rattles you.
Resolve the paradox, explain the discrepancy, and resolve reconcile
explain all name the same type.
Cannot be true and must be false are the same type.
Same room, different sign on the door.
Here is your one heuristic for the whole episode.
Read the door, run the move.
Read the stem, name the door, then run that door's one move.
Read the door, run the move.
And the cafe from the top, my gut said the price hike scared customers off,
but that stem was a paradox, so the right answer never denies a fact.
Same cups stays true, and the switch to the small size reconciles it.
I would have walked into the trap.
You closed the loop.
Next episode, Episode 11.
We have spent ten episodes inside the stimulus.
Now we turn to the five answer choices themselves, the trap patterns they hide,
and how to read them fast under the clock.
Between now and then, one tiny action.
Pull five questions from the bank, read only the stems, and name the door for each
in under ten seconds.
Do not solve them.
Just name the door.
That is the skill that pays.