[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-178921-105":59,"doc-detail-178921-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","lr-snippets-by-prevalence-1","LR-Snippets-by-Prevalence-1","","Systematized guidance for Logical Reasoning question solving, organized by answer-prevalence tiers. Covers how to attack flawed arguments by locating assumptions, identifying missing links, and judging whether statements are descriptively true and objectionable. Provides a structured method for predicting answers, recognizing common reasoning failures (reversals, negations, unproven claims, part/whole, alternate explanations), and evaluating impact on conclusions and evidence. Emphasizes conditional logic, causal reasoning, and what qualifies as a strong vs weak weakening answer.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":20,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/lr-snippets-by-prevalence-1/178921/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/lr-snippets-by-prevalence-1/178921.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Aria Callaghan","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-06","2026-09-02",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":19},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"How can you spot a flawed argument when reading the stimulus?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Look for entry points like illegal moves, ungrounded assumptions, conditional reversals/negations, and patterns such as part/whole confusion or unproven claims. Anticipate rebuttals that target these reasoning moves.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What checklist helps decide whether an answer is correct in the “judging answers” step?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Verify descriptive truth first, then check objectionability. Test whether the answer assumes or presumes X without justification, overlooks relevant possibilities, or fails to consider necessary conditions that connect evidence to conclusion.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How do you identify the necessary assumption in a weakening question?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Find missing links: determine what the argument’s conclusion requires to be true for the reasoning to work. Use term shifts or untriggered conditional logic clues, then select answers that connect ideas and rule out objections.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},178921,1788334510,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":19,"category_name":20,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":19,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":24,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":143},962084926284,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","| rank  \u003Cbr>Flaw  \u003Cbr>1st   | READING STIMULUS  \u003Cbr>Be the Anti-Conclusion's Lawyer  \u003Cbr>Read like a skeptic!You have to argue  \u003Cbr>with this person.Find an entry point.Can  \u003Cbr>you call out an illegal move,spot an  \u003Cbr>assumption or argue the anti-conclusion?  \u003Cbr>SEE THIS?CONSIDER THIS:  \u003Cbr>conditional logic Nec/Suff(reversals/negations)  \u003Cbr>rebuttal arg Ad Hom,Unproven/False  \u003Cbr>copycat ideas Sampling,Part/Whole  \u003Cbr>causa conclusion Alternate Explanations  \u003Cbr>recommendations Overlooked Downsides  \u003Cbr>comparisons Overlooked Differences   | JUDGING ANSWERS  \u003Cbr>1.Is this descriptively true?  \u003Cbr>2.If so,is it objectionable?  \u003Cbr>“Takes for granted that X.….”  \u003Cbr>“Presumes Xw/o justification”  \u003Cbr>\"Fails to estabish that X...\"  \u003Cbr>Did we NEED to assume X?  \u003Cbr>“Fails to consider thatY...”  \u003Cbr>\"Overlooks possibility that Y.….\"  \u003Cbr>If true,would Y WEAKEN?  \u003Cbr>“Infers Y on the basis of X”  \u003Cbr>\"Takes for granted if X then Y\"  \u003Cbr>“Fails to consider even if X,~Y”  \u003Cbr>Does X match Ev.and Y Conc.?   | WRONG ANSWERS  \u003Cbr>Not True they didn't assume that/  \u003Cbr>they didn't fail to consider that(very  \u003Cbr>rare)/they didn't conclude that/they  \u003Cbr>didn't have evidence like that/they  \u003Cbr>didn't make that reasoning move.  \u003Cbr>Not Objectionable that idea is  \u003Cbr>irrelevant so no need to consider it/  \u003Cbr>that description is true but that's not a  \u003Cbr>reasoning problem/that assumption  \u003Cbr>is totally reasonable(very rare).  \u003Cbr>RIGHT ANSWERS  \u003Cbr>-callout assumptions  \u003Cbr>-present reasonable objections  \u003Cbr>-describe faulty reasoning moves   |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| ~40%of them commit one of the  \u003Cbr>STIMULUS  \u003Cbr>Famous Flaws.60%commit  \u003Cbr>arguments,reasoning  \u003Cbr>unique flaws.  \u003Cbr>PREDICT ANSWER?  \u003Cbr>Very important to try to predict an  \u003Cbr>answer.Keep analyzing until you  \u003Cbr>Medium High  \u003Cbr>can articulate a flaw,but stay  \u003Cbr>flexible while reading the answers.  \u003Cbr>STEM KEYWORDS  \u003Cbr>The argument is most vulnerable to  \u003Cbr>vulnerable to criticism,  \u003Cbr>criticism because it  \u003Cbr>flawed,questionable   |  |  |  |\n| rank  \u003Cbr>Necessary Assumption  \u003Cbr>2nd   | READING STIMULUS  \u003Cbr>Look for Missing Links/ldeas  \u003Cbr>f there's conditional logic or a math-y feel:  \u003Cbr>-Is there a New Concept in the Conclusion &  \u003Cbr>what's its closest match in the Evidence?  \u003Cbr>-Is there a Term Shift,assumed similarity,or  \u003Cbr>untriggered conditional in the Evidence?  \u003Cbr>Spot Objections to Neutralize  \u003Cbr>If arg.sounds pretty good,Anti-Conclusion!  \u003Cbr>Causal-Alternate explanations  \u003Cbr>Plan-Possible downsides  \u003Cbr>Comparison-Crucial differences   | JUDGING ANSWERS  \u003Cbr>-Does this need to be true for  \u003Cbr>the argument to work?  \u003Cbr>-If I negate this,does it weaken  \u003Cbr>the arg?(don't use Neg Test on  \u003Cbr>conditional answers)  \u003Cbr>-Lean away from strong  \u003Cbr>wording and new ideas.  \u003Cbr>-Lean towards familiar ideas  \u003Cbr>and answers that rule out an  \u003Cbr>idea using the word“not”(drop  \u003Cbr>the'not',does it weaken?)   | WRONG ANSWERS  \u003Cbr>Too Strong most/the only =red flags!  \u003Cbr>Out of Scope unmentioned ideas not  \u003Cbr>relevant to conclusion  \u003Cbr>Irrelevant Comparison/  \u003Cbr>Causal Relationship/Quality  \u003Cbr>Weakens appealing but opposite!  \u003Cbr>Reversed/Negated Logic right  \u003Cbr>ideas,wrong order  \u003Cbr>RIGHT ANSWERS  \u003Cbr>-Missing Links connect ideas  \u003Cbr>-Defenders rule out objections   |\n| 1/2 test a missing link or fact  \u003Cbr>STIMULUS  \u003Cbr>internal to arg,and 1/2 test a new  \u003Cbr>arguments,reasoning  \u003Cbr>consideration that could weaken.  \u003Cbr>For missing links/facts,w'll have  \u003Cbr>PREDICT ANSWER?  \u003Cbr>a very specific prediction,but for  \u003Cbr>Medium  \u003Cbr>new considerations,a fuzzy idea.  \u003Cbr>STEM KEYWORDS  \u003Cbr>Which of the following in an  \u003Cbr>assumption on which the argument  \u003Cbr>assumption,assuming  \u003Cbr>depends?  \u003Cbr>depends/relies/must   |  |  |  |\n| rank  \u003Cbr>Weaken  \u003Cbr>3rd  \u003Cbr>Mostly causal explanations(aka  \u003Cbr>STIMULUS  \u003Cbr>hypotheses),plans,predictions,  \u003Cbr>arguments,hypotheses  \u003Cbr>comparisons,or recommendations.  \u003Cbr>Sometimes predict a ","cbCaikuP2ajJzFXu","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaikuP2ajJzFXu","pdf",2921252,"English","# Flaw-focused reading and rebuttal\n# Judging answers: truth vs objectionability\n# Wrong vs right reasoning moves\n# Predicting answers by prevalence tiers\n# Necessary assumptions: missing links and neutralization\n# Weakening by causal explanations and alternate explanations\n# Most supported tier: causal connections","[{\"question\":\"How can you spot a flawed argument when reading the stimulus?\",\"answer\":\"Look for entry points like illegal moves, ungrounded assumptions, conditional reversals/negations, and patterns such as part/whole confusion or unproven claims. Anticipate rebuttals that target these reasoning moves.\"},{\"question\":\"What checklist helps decide whether an answer is correct in the “judging answers” step?\",\"answer\":\"Verify descriptive truth first, then check objectionability. Test whether the answer assumes or presumes X without justification, overlooks relevant possibilities, or fails to consider necessary conditions that connect evidence to conclusion.\"},{\"question\":\"How do you identify the necessary assumption in a weakening question?\",\"answer\":\"Find missing links: determine what the argument’s conclusion requires to be true for the reasoning to work. Use term shifts or untriggered conditional logic clues, then select answers that connect ideas and rule out objections.\"}]","LR-Snippets-by-Prevalence-1 | PDF",13]