Logical Reasoning Basic Concepts V

In the practice of law, which each LSAT examinee is at least contemplating, there are many useful mental skills one needs. Perhaps none are more important than taking a large volume of facts, quickly identifying the issue or issues, eliminating any superfluous facts, and logically arranging the remaining relevant facts into a useful format. At the heart of this skill is a trait that many find befuddling. That is the ability to fully know what one does not know.

This skill is difficult to attain for many reasons, not the least of which is each person's natural desire to appear smarter than they really are. The LSAT uses the logical reasoning (arguments) sections to test this very skill. It may be helpful to use a picture to illustrate this concept. Consider a circle. Everything within the circle represents what is known in a given situation. Everything outside the circle represents what is not known in a given situation. What is not known may range from assumptions that may seem reasonable all the way to complete ignorance, but everything outside of the circle shares the common trait of being unknown.

The LSAT is a unique exam in that it does not test examinees based on their substantive knowledge of a particular subject matter. Rather, it tests examinees on their ability to demonstrate certain mental skills. One of these tested mental skills is the ability to identify and acknowledge what is not known. Consider the following example:

Mark hates flying for business. Last July Mark drove himself from Los Angeles to New York.

The obvious conclusion from these facts is that Mark drove from Los Angeles to New York because he hates flying, right? This may be a reasonable inference in conversations, but making such assumptions will kill an examinee's score on the LSAT. Instead of approaching facts from the standpoint of what is known, it is better to approach the facts seeking what is not known. For example, we don't know why Mark hates flying for business. Does Mark hate flying, period? We don't know. We don't know if Mark ever flies despite this hatred, or how routinely he flies if he does fly. We certainly don't know that Mark made this specific trip from Los Angeles to New York driving a car as a result of his hatred for flying. In fact, we don't even know if Mark drove a car. Perhaps Mark made the drive to view the scenery or visit a relative in between destinations. We also don't know why Mark made the trip from Los Angeles to New York. Was it for business or for pleasure? As with any circle you draw, the space outside of the circle is vastly larger than the space inside the circle. The same is true with facts, especially those given on the LSAT. What is known from the facts given in logical reasoning (arguments) problems is much smaller than what is not known. Accepting this truth and developing a keen ability to understand what is not known from a factual situation puts the examinee in a much better position to succeed.