Write an analogous problem.

[rmoncel]

Hi there:

"For Logical Reasoning, Write an analogous problem."

This is the advice you give on your online proctor page for reviewing and improving on difficult / failed LR questions. Just to make sure I understand what you mean, could you give a few examples?

Thanks!

[noah]

Glad to.

Let's take a problem from the June 2007 LSAT (http://www.lsac.org/jd/pdfs/SamplePTJune.pdf). Take a look at LR question 21 in the second section. ("Driver: My friends say I will...") Imagine that you had trouble seeing the flaw. Once you grasp it, to seal the deal you could come up with an analogous argument. Here's one:

Ronnie is at high risk for heart disease because he is overweight and doesn't exercise, like all of his friends and family in Cholestorolville. But, he's looked into it, and it seems that people who live in Aspen Colorado tend to have healthy hearts, so he's moving to Aspen and thus his risk for heart disease will drop.

This took me a bit of tinkering to create - and that's the point. I first had to figure out what the core of the original argument is, stripped of it's content. I started with the core, including the content:

People who drive minivans have low accident rates --> Switching from a sports car to a minivan will lower a driver's chances of having an accident.

What's the problem with this? Switching the car doesn't make a difference, it's how you drive. The low accident rate for minivan drivers might be because people who buy minivans have kids and are therefore more careful. There's also a problem with concluding that a likelihood will apply to an individual (just because most people get a benefit from something doesn't mean one specific person will).

Now I'll strip it of the content:

Folks who use X instead of Y have more Z --> If I switch from X to Y I'll have more Z.

But that doesn't do it. There needs to be something about X and Y that makes the switching possible indicate an inherent interest or likelihood of having more Z. So, it should be more like this:

Folks who use X instead of Y have more Z (perhaps because people who do Y tend to like Z) --> If I switch from X to Y I'll have more Z.

That's how I came up with my analogy. I'm not 100% thrilled with it because the reckless use of a sports car is a bit different then living in an unhealthy manner in a certain town. And, it's not as clear that people might move to Aspen because they are healthy (not that Aspen makes them healthy). But, this process has led me to see the argument a bit more clearly for sure.

Does that help? Happy to keep discussing this, as it's a great tool.

[rmoncel]

Cool, thanks. Very helpful!