Q8 - Various mid-fourteenth-century

[Bindoo08]

I get confused by questions like this. How does one go about eliminating the incorrect answers as fast as possible? I can't seem to get the correct answer through elimination.

[cyruswhittaker]

For this question, it's important to recognize the method of argumentation.

The argument's conclusion is based on a couple examples. So, essentially, the author appears to be generalizing from these examples, in order to arrive at the conclusion.

Notice that A has this simlair form of reasoning based on generalization.

B-E do not illustrate the method of reasoning.

As an additional point, consider what can be used to attack (weaken) an argument based on generalization. Two things that come to my mind are 1) counterexamples and 2) the examples misrepresent the group being generalized about.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Match the Reasoning are some of the most time-intensive questions that appear on the exam --

As cyrus has mentioned, for these problems, it is essential that you have a strong understanding of the structure of the initial argument -- if you don't have this, than you won't have an easy way to eliminate answers.

Practice, for these questions, paraphrasing what is going on in the structure of the argument. For this argument, I would think of it as -

Cards not mentioned in 14th century writing
Cards not mentioned in 14th century laws
Therefore, cards probably weren't common then.

So, 2 examples of not having evidence of something, then a conclusion that something didn't likely happen --

As we go into the answers, we want to identify and keep ones with a similar structure, and eliminate answers that have different structure -- this is often most obvious because the answers have "parts" that don't match with the original argument.

(A) matches that structure exactly. Let's keep it for now.

(B) gives examples that tell conflicting info - we can eliminate.

(C) has a very different logical structure and can be eliminated quickly.

(D) has a very different logical structure.

(E) compares the reliability of evidence from one source vs another. Again, very different from the argument.

That leaves us with (A), the best available. On the exam, you would want to match up each of the components of (A) against the argument to double-check it.

[inesa909]

The only issue that I had with this question was that I was under the impression that the logic of the question stem was invalid because it concludes that something does not exist because there is no evidence for its existing.
I was also led to believe that the LSAC explicitly states whether the logic of the stem is valid or invalid (flawed).

Am I mistaken in determining the arguments invalid?

[mornincounselor]

The only issue that I had with this question was that I was under the impression that the logic of the question stem was invalid because it concludes that something does not exist because there is no evidence for its existing.
I was also led to believe that the LSAC explicitly states whether the logic of the stem is valid or invalid (flawed).

Am I mistaken in determining the arguments invalid?

You are mistaken. LSAC will often, but not always, specifically label flawed reasoning as such in these questions.