Nova's LSAT Prep Course

Identify four LSAT obfuscating tactics that make wrong answers seem correct, such as true but irrelevant statements and repetition of the argument's language, because a correct answer must be supported.

Learn the one two or five rule, identify the two merit-worthy choices among five, and avoid tactics like irrelevant statements, repeating stem language, overstating, or unsupported claims.

learn to determine a conclusion's literal meaning by reading only the author's stated claims, avoiding overstatement or understatement, and carefully attending to precise wording.

Explain the meaning of 'some' in sentences, showing that some means at least one and perhaps all, and discuss implications for interpreting statements about Mary's friends.

Identify and apply common conclusion indicators such as so, thus, therefore, consequently, and accordingly to determine when a claim follows, while noting these words can have other functions.

Examine how 'thus' signals a conclusion in lsat-style arguments using an example about devout Muslims abstaining from alcohol. The lecture clarifies how conclusions follow from the first two sentences.

Learn to craft arguments in LSAT prep by building up to an unstated conclusion, guiding readers to decide through a skillfully manipulated example.

The lecture argues that if an oligarchy cannot pursue a specific investment because no single person has the power, then only individuals make risky investments.

Analyze how conclusions connect television violence to society's violence, compare wage patterns favoring new trades over old, and explore existentialist views on evolving dignity and identity.

Explore premise indicators and their cautious use, distinguishing since as a premise marker from time, and use sense to locate the premise that the incumbents' positions are unpopular.

Identify the suppressed premise that the network harmed its argument by not protecting the presidential race winner and that it would lose ratings if it failed to predict the winner.

Analyze suppressed premises and reasonable assumptions in LSAT-style scenarios, such as geographic location, privacy, and score reporting, while distinguishing truth from inferences about cheating.

Identify suppressed premises in arguments, from what goes beyond the evidence to the claim that a single individual acts boldly. Assess whether comparable pay entices dedicated teachers to change careers.

Outline the argument's structure: main premise that nature adjusts atmospheric carbon, secondary premise about fossil fuels raising carbon to dangerous levels, and counter-premise that environmentalists should be lax.

Identify premises that support the conclusion and recognize common indicators like because and since, and evaluate suppressed premises to strengthen or weaken arguments in LSAT-style questions.

Show how to weaken an argument by exposing a false premise, noting that older engines stay in use due to high demand and overseas shipments, so selection C is correct.

Identify the assumptions in selection B of a LSAT question, noting that zinc levels in diseased plants are a symptom, not a cause, and phosphorus fertilizer is irrelevant.

Analyze an LSAT argument about whether the conclusion is valid given the assumption that the instrument was first developed with horse hair, compared to alternatives like tree bark.

Examine how the first sentence drives the question and how publishers rely on buyers amid the computer information age eliminating printed information, noting the correct answer is B.

Explain how an outside factor may cause both conditions. Show that wearing contact lenses can cause dry eyes, though the author does not claim it must.

Navigate problem 10 by recognizing that the simple answer, B, is correct, and distinguish it from the simplistic answer while noting what is inferred rather than stated.

Identify and weaken the argument by disproving a premise about robots understanding sound production and instrument quality. Assess whether such understanding would allow robots to replace skilled craftsmen.

Analyze why head injuries still occur in children who wear bicycle helmets and select the option that aligns with the passage’s claim that helmets reduce total injuries, not eliminate all.

Assess how exposure to electromagnetic fields relates to children's growth rates and examine whether housing type or other ailments confound the study's conclusions.

Analyze why only an abnormal pepper plant fits the plan by contrasting normal production limits with dormancy and revived growth, including lab-grown, soil-less scenarios.

Analyze how the passage links early slave practice to later legal protections, focusing on the importation of African slaves and the timing of slavery laws.

Explore how snowfall, disease in Paluska, predator sightings, population density, and area size influence migratory bird flight through Pliska and Paluska in Hilton county, highlighting data gaps and uncertain links.

Analyze how enforcing a new policy relates to actual behavior change and evaluate the relevance of evidence about fraternities, late nights, and other distractions in the coach's rule scenario.

Assess how a single person who profited from the tutelage of Mr. Cooper affects argument validity in LSAT questions, separating valid conclusions from strong claims and noting missing premises.

The argument claims two criteria for Brown County Club membership: net worth over 10 million and no entertainment connections; Chase's acceptance implies no entertainment ties and no Hollywood-financed movie.

Analyze if-then structures and embedded conditional forms in flowcharts, including a implies b, mapping premises to conclusions. Clarify that a true premise makes the conclusion follow in a conditional statement.

Engage in an embedded if-then drill and translate sentences into equivalent then form, using examples with academic freedom, Rothschild, Montague, and monarch scenarios.

Explore embedded if-then drills to analyze conditional statements about attending a party, Rothschild and monarchy outcomes, and how gender assumptions shape logic.

Explore the affirming the conclusion fallacy with symbolization of if-then arguments and diagramming, and distinguish circular and invalid conclusions from valid contraposition using provided examples.

Explore the denying the premise fallacy, where denying 'if A then B' leads to 'not B', noting it's less tested than the affirming the conclusion fallacy.

Analyze the denying the premise fallacy with an embedded if-then example where negating the premise yields a negated conclusion. A diagram illustrates fallacy and LSAT reasoning about negation and conclusion.

Apply De Morgan's laws: not (A and B) equals not A or not B; not (A or B) equals not A and not B. Use them to simplify arguments.

Illustrate how De Morgan’s laws convert not (B or J) into not B and not J, using a diagram to show that neither is going to the party.

Examine game-like arguments and their logical structure, and learn when such arguments warrant study and how to draw a conclusion.

Explore lsat logic concepts like the denying the premise fallacy, transitive property, and De Morgan's law, with conditional reasoning examples such as if a then b and a unless b.

Explore lsat-style logic using conditional statements, negation, and contrapositive and transitive reasoning, with diagramming of drought and wildlife scenarios to identify a valid conclusion.

Apply the transitive property to chain implications by diagramming good grades to good college to good job. Analyze LSAT-style options by diagramming the transitions and identifying the correct reasoning.

Nova's LSAT prep course, problem 5, highlights faulty reasoning and the fallacy of affirming the conclusion, using diagramming to identify the correct answer.

Explore LSAT logic questions on selecting sculptures by Fillmore or Clive, analyzing premises, conclusions, and possible outcomes about bronze and stainless steel works.

Identify the rule that if recouped costs imply the break-even point, then recouping retooling costs means sales sufficient to reach it.

Symbolize LSAT arguments with if-then forms and analyze validity, revealing the fallacy of affirming the consequent in a Harvard School of Law student scenario.

Diagram arguments from the passage and answer choices to apply contrapositive reasoning, analyze if-then structures and negation, and identify the LSAT-style correct choice that matches the original premises.

Identify common analogy indicators like similar to, as well, likewise, just as, and so too, and learn how writers sometimes use analogies without flagging terms.

Examine causal reasoning as a type of inductive argument, noting its fallibility and context sensitivity, with examples from lottery luck, shooting stars, smoking and cancer, and genetic predisposition.

Analyze a causal reasoning example where magnanimous behavior enhances mood and well-being via chemical release, and may influence immune activity, as evidence shows white blood cells are stimulated, not increased.

Apply a theory using controlled experiments by forming a test and a control group under identical conditions except for the one variable, to attribute observed differences to that variable.

Explain why percent fiber can mislead by focusing on absolute fiber per pill and daily needs. A 1 g pill at 44 percent fiber still requires 100 pills.

Analyze LSAT-style arguments with counter-premise indicators and analogies, distinguishing meaning over sound patterns in translation and music, guided by the nature of the original and the instrument.

In Nova's LSAT prep course, problem 2, the lecture argues that upper-atmosphere ozone depletion is offset by lower-atmosphere ozone increase, yielding more overall ozone and greater absorption of ultraviolet radiation.

Understand that older cars are more likely to require major repairs, but they may be classics driven on special occasions or owners buy new cars when they break down.

Analyze common fallacies and identify the underlying thought processes behind each type of question, determining which option shares the same logic as the passage.

Identify contradiction as a glaring logical fallacy by analyzing how two opposing statements, like it's raining and it's not raining, undermine an argument.

Identify self-contradictions in the argument and in answer choices, eliminate non-contradictory options, and select the one with the clear contradiction (choice d).

Examine circular reasoning, where the conclusion restates the premise, illustrated by the death penalty example where 'right' and 'appropriate' mean the same thing.

Explore unwarranted assumptions as a fallacy in problem analysis, where conclusions rely on false or unwarranted premises that are often implicit or vaguely written, with examples.

Identify the converse fallacy confusing necessary and sufficient conditions, as the argument wrongly treats a sufficient condition as necessary, illustrated by a percentile and study hours example.

Explain why the claim that all artists support government sponsorship is fallacious, since some oppose it and government involvement may stifle artistic expression; it taints opinion by profession.

Analyze an appeal to authority in the LSAT prep context, where the author uses agreement from respected figures as sole evidence, illustrating this reasoning and leading to option c.

Analyzes a personal attack example on Henry Kissinger, used to justify actions and avoid addressing the question in an lsat prep context, illustrating how character attacks undermine argument credibility.

Identify common logical fallacies such as contradiction, equivocation, circular reasoning, and shifting the burden of proof. Recognize unwarranted assumptions, irrelevant truths, appeal to authority, and personal attacks.