Argument Core Question

[MichaelW907]

I have a serious problem with some arguments that seem to be written in a really bad shape. Say

PT29-S1-Q14

I can reduce the argument core to as follows:

P: we have conclusive evidence the moon was full and Dr. Yuge acknowledges that the moon was full enough

C: the light was enough

I was just very confused about the testimony given by Dr. Huge earlier in the stimuli--it looks totally redundant.

Another one is

PT39-S2-Q14

Argument core:

P: the bill has negative economic consequences

C: the legislator should reject it

I was struggled really hard to understand why the large part of the stimuli went around the popularity. The argument was a super mess for me. After wasting tons of time, I figured out the popularity might be a counterargument?/counterpremise? But this makes the whole argument even messier for me:

P: the bill has negative economic consequences

C: the legislator should reject it

CA: the bill is popular (then it requires an assumption: legislators should vote for a popular bill), but then it is dismissed as a CA by an analogy that great leaders dare not to vote for a popular bill

My question is: Is there any quicker and more efficient way to tackle such messy arguments? I really spend too much time on putting pieces together.

[ohthatpatrick]

It seems like you might need to make more use of indicator words.

CONC:
so, thus, therefore, hence, this shows that, consequently, etc.

PREM:
for, after all, because, since (F.A.B.S.)

PIVOT FROM BACKGROUND TO AUTHOR'S ARGUMENT:
but, yet, however


On the PT29 example, you have this structure.

Someone else said ________ .
But _______ . And ______ .
So _______ .

From just those words, we know the function of everything.

You're right: the first sentence is pretty extraneous. The "but" should be telling your brain that what came before it was NOT part of the argument core.

========

On the PT39 example, you said you worried a lot about the popularity part, that was prefaced with an "Although".

Any time LSAT authors say
Although _____, ______.
Despite _____ , ______ .
While it is true that _____ , ______ .

The SECOND idea is what the author wants us to come away with.

Your argument core was fine:
CONC - don't vote for the bill
[why?]
EVIDENCE - it will have mainly negative economic consequences

The popularity thing is a side issue that is raised and dismissed.
COUNTEREVIDENCE - the bill is popular
but
SHOOTING DOWN COUNTEREVIDENCE - great leaders look beyond popularity