Finding Conclusions on the LSAT Test | Advanced Techniques

This is the second in a series of lesson articles about conclusions on the LSAT test. The series includes the following articles:

• LSAT Conclusions: an Introduction
• Finding Conclusions on the LSAT Test: Advanced Techniques
• Conclusion Questions on the LSAT Test
• LSAT Secrets for Conclusions

Finding Conclusions on the LSAT Test: Advanced Techniques
 
Sometimes an author uses an analogy to support her main idea. Often the LSAT tries to trick you by giving you an answer choice related to an analogy. The analogy is never central to the argument, and is never the main conclusion. For example:

Kristen said she was late because of traffic. I don’t think the teacher should accept that as an excuse. She should allow herself enough time to make up for variations in traffic patterns. She wouldn’t argue for a better grade based on the fact that she didn’t have time to study.

Arguing for a better grade is an example the author gives us to show a similar situation that points to an inconsistency in Kristen’s argument. The author doesn’t really care about grades, she cares about Kristen’s argument for punctuality. Still, when asking for the main idea or conclusion, the LSAT will probably try to trick you with answers similar to the following:

• Kristen would have better grades if she allowed more time for traffic.
• Kristen shouldn’t argue about her grades.
• Good grades require time devoted to proper study habits.

These would all be wrong answers. Remember, the analogy is never central to an argument.

Several Conclusions, One Main Point

Occasionally an LSAT argument can have more than one conclusion; however, it will never have more than one main point. To illustrate this, let’s add a few phrases to the above argument:

The government should reduce the amount of money it spends on drug-related law enforcement. Our nation is in the midst of an educational crisis that is unrivaled in our history. Our schools are in disrepair, our teachers or underpaid, and truancy is at an all-time high. We need to spend that money on new schools and more teachers, not in locking up an occasional drug addict.

We now have premises that support the conclusion that our nation is in the midst of an educational crisis. That conclusion also functions as a premise for the main conclusion, the main idea, that we should reduce spending on drug-related law enforcement.

In the next article, we will cover how to tackle Conclusion Questions on the LSAT Test.