Rank 9 by frequency | 215 questions in corpus (4.7% of all questions)
A Method of Reasoning question asks you to describe HOW an argument is constructed – what argumentative technique, strategy, or logical method the author (or a responding speaker) uses. You are not evaluating whether the reasoning is good or bad, just accurately describing its structure. The correct answer is an abstract description of the argumentative technique employed in the stimulus. This question type requires you to read for structure rather than content.
Identify the answer choice that most accurately represents the argumentative technique, strategy, or logical method used in the stimulus. You must abstract away from the specific subject matter and recognize the structural pattern of reasoning.
Your ability to read for structure rather than content. You must see past what the argument is about and recognize what the argument is doing – the technique it employs. This requires fluency with abstract descriptions of reasoning patterns and the ability to translate between concrete arguments and their abstract characterizations.
Single-Speaker Format:
1. Background/context may be provided. Orienting information that does not participate in logical support (e.g., "Homelessness is a serious social problem"). This is NOT a premise or conclusion.
Arguments contain four possible structural elements: - Background/Context: Orienting information that does not participate in logical support - Premises: Statements providing support but receiving none - Subsidiary (Intermediate) Conclusions: Statements both receiving and providing support - Main Conclusion: The tip of the argumentative pyramid – receives support but gives none
The "method" is the pattern by which premises connect to the conclusion. This pattern is what the correct answer describes in abstract terms.
This question type is purely descriptive. You are not asked whether the argument is good, whether it is flawed, or whether the conclusion is true. You are asked: "What is the argument doing?" The correct answer must be an accurate description of a technique that actually occurs in the stimulus. Every element of the correct answer must be verifiable against the stimulus (the "Fact Test").
Correct answer: - Uses abstract language to describe a reasoning technique that actually occurs in the stimulus - Every element of the description is verifiable in the stimulus - Accurately characterizes the relationship between premises and conclusion - May not be the most comprehensive description possible, but must be accurate - Uses language like "by doing X to establish Y" or "argues that X by showing Y"
Incorrect answers: - Describe techniques that do not occur in the stimulus (even if they sound sophisticated) - Accurately describe one part of the argument but inaccurately describe another part - Mislabel the role of a statement (describe the conclusion as a premise, or a premise as the conclusion) - Describe the content of the argument rather than its logical structure - Use correct abstract terminology but apply it to the wrong element - Sound impressively abstract and "LSAT-like" but contain factual errors about the stimulus
Question stems: - "The argument proceeds by..." - "Which one of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning used in the argument?" - "The argumentative strategy of the investigator is to..." - "In the passage, the author does which one of the following?" - "Which one of the following argumentative techniques does [person] use?"
How it works: You must describe the overall logical technique used in the entire argument. The correct answer characterizes the macro-level reasoning strategy.
Question stems: - "[Person B] responds to [Person A]'s claim by..." - "Which one of the following most accurately expresses the grounds on which [Person B] criticizes [Person A]'s reasoning?" - "[Person B] challenges [Person A]'s reasoning by..." - "[Person B] counters [Person A] by doing which one of the following?"
How it works: Two speakers are presented. Speaker A makes an argument; Speaker B responds. You must identify the technique Speaker B uses to engage with Speaker A's argument.
Note: This is technically a separate question type (Type 14: Identify the Role), but it is closely related to Method of Reasoning and is classified under the same family by several prep companies. It is included here for the critical distinction.
Question stems: - "The claim that [quoted statement] plays which one of the following roles in the argument?" - "The statement that [quoted statement] figures in the argument in which one of the following ways?" - "Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that...?"
1. Uses abstract language exclusively. Correct answers never refer to the specific subject matter of the stimulus. They use general terms like "a claim," "an example," "a generalization," "evidence," "a principle," "a counterexample," "an alternative explanation."
2. Every element is factually accurate about the stimulus. If the answer says "provides a counterexample to a general claim," then (a) there must be a general claim in the stimulus, and (b) the author must actually provide a case that contradicts it. The Fact Test applies: nothing in the answer can describe something that did not happen in the stimulus.
1. Technique never employed: The answer describes a reasoning technique that simply does not appear in the stimulus. The argument does not use an analogy, but the answer says it does. This is the most basic wrong answer type.
2. Mislabeled structural elements: The answer correctly identifies that a technique was used but mislabels the roles of the components. Common examples: - Describes the conclusion as a premise - Describes a premise as the conclusion - Calls a subsidiary conclusion the main conclusion - Calls background information a premise - Describes a claim as a "phenomenon" when it is not
The correct answer is an abstract description that, when "de-abstracted" (translated back into concrete terms using the stimulus content), matches exactly what happens in the stimulus. The strategy of verification: replace every abstract term in the answer with the specific content from the stimulus. If the resulting concrete statement is true of the stimulus, the answer is correct.
Single-Speaker Methods:
1. Counterexample: Refuting a general claim by citing a specific case that contradicts it. "All X are Y" is countered with "Here is an X that is not Y."
1. Complex, multi-layered arguments: The stimulus contains background, premises, subsidiary conclusions, and a main conclusion. Parsing the structure is the primary challenge.
2. Subtle technique identification: The technique is not obvious – it requires careful analysis to recognize what is being done. For instance, the author "questions the relevance of the evidence to the conclusion" rather than "disputes the evidence" – a subtle but critical distinction.
1. Read the stimulus and identify all structural components: - What is background/context? - What are the premises? - Are there subsidiary conclusions? - What is the main conclusion? - (In dialogue: What is each speaker's conclusion and evidence?)
2. Characterize the argumentative technique in your own words. Before looking at answer choices, ask: "What is this argument DOING?" Try to describe it abstractly. Examples of self-talk: - "The author gives a specific example to counter a general claim" - "Speaker B offers a different explanation for the same evidence" - "The argument eliminates other possibilities to support its conclusion"
Method of Reasoning vs. Flaw:
| Method of Reasoning | Flaw | |—|—| | Asks what the argument DOES | Asks what the argument does WRONG | | Describes the technique (may be valid or flawed) | Identifies the specific logical error | | Correct answer is neutral/descriptive | Correct answer is critical/evaluative | | "The argument proceeds by..." | "The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that..." | | You do not judge the quality of the reasoning | You identify the quality failure |
Understanding this abstract vocabulary is essential for this question type:
| Abstract Term | Meaning | |—|—| | "provides a counterexample" | Gives a specific case that contradicts a general claim | | "draws an analogy" | Compares two situations to argue they should have similar outcomes | | "appeals to authority" | Cites expert opinion or research findings | | "offers an alternative explanation" | Proposes a different cause/reason for the same evidence | | "eliminates alternatives" | Rules out other possibilities to support the remaining one | | "applies a general principle" | Takes an abstract rule and applies it to a specific case | | "draws a distinction" | Points out a relevant difference between two things | | "generalizes from specific instances" | Draws a broad conclusion from particular examples | | "uses reductio ad absurdum" | Shows a position leads to absurd consequences | | "challenges an assumption" | Questions an unstated premise the argument relies on | | "cites a phenomenon to be explained" | Presents an observation and then proposes an explanation | | "argues by elimination" | Rules out all options except the favored one | | "questions the relevance" | Argues the evidence does not actually support the conclusion | | "concedes a point" | Accepts something the opponent says but argues it does not matter | | "intermediate/subsidiary conclusion" | A claim supported by premises that itself supports the main conclusion |