Method of Reasoning Questions on the LSAT: Describing How an Argument Works

A method of reasoning question asks you to describe the technique an author uses to make an argument. The stem reads like: the argument proceeds by, or the author responds to the opposing position by. You are not judging whether the argument is good. You are describing what it does.

These answers are written in abstract language: offers a counterexample, draws an analogy, rules out alternative explanations, distinguishes between two concepts. Your job is to find the abstract description that matches the concrete argument in front of you.

Start by finding the conclusion, because every description of method is a description of how the author supports that conclusion. Then look at each premise and ask what role it plays.

Common moves to recognize: providing an example, citing an authority, presenting a counterexample to a general claim, drawing an analogy between two situations, eliminating competing explanations, or appealing to a general principle and then applying it to a specific case.

Naming the move in your own words before reading the answers protects you from being talked into a wrong choice that uses confident, official-sounding vocabulary.

Many method questions involve a dialogue: one speaker makes a claim, and a second speaker responds. The question often asks how the second speaker responds to the first.

Be precise about the response type. Does the second speaker attack the evidence, attack the conclusion, point out that the conclusion does not follow even if the evidence is true, or reinterpret a key term. These are different methods, and the answer choices will tempt you with the wrong one.

A frequent trap describes the second speaker as disputing a fact when they actually accept the fact but dispute its relevance. Read carefully.

The fastest elimination tool here is the did-it-happen test. Read each answer and ask whether the argument actually did that. If the answer says the author relies on a statistical study and there is no study in the stimulus, it is wrong, no matter how reasonable it sounds.

Abstract answer choices often describe a perfectly common argumentative technique that simply is not present in this particular argument. Match to the text, not to what arguments usually do.

Identify the conclusion. Describe in plain words how the author gets there. For dialogues, pinpoint exactly what the second speaker targets. Eliminate any answer describing a move that did not occur. Choose the abstract phrasing that survives.

With practice you will build a mental library of standard moves, and method questions become some of the most reliable points in the Logical Reasoning section.