Main content

Course: LSAT > Unit 1

Lesson 6: Logical Reasoning – Articles

Match structure | Learn more

How do we match the patterns and structures of arguments?

“Match the structure” questions on the LSAT test your ability to determine how an argument goes. It begins with an argument in the stimulus and then asks you to choose another argument from among the choices that is structurally the same.

How do we recognize “Match the structure” questions?

In Match the Structure questions, you’ll always see:

An argument in the passage
Arguments in each of the choices

The questions themselves are worded in a variety of ways, including:

The pattern of reasoning in which of the following arguments is most similar to that in the argument above?

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?

These questions tend to take more time to complete than most of the other question types. Why? Well, they’re long—you don’t have to read just one argument, you have to read six (the stimulus plus the five choices)! Given the time constraint, these are questions that many students choose to skip and return to if they have time.

Example

Watching music videos from the 1970s would give the viewer the impression that the music of the time was dominated by synthesizer pop and punk rock. But this would be a misleading impression. Because music videos were a new art form at the time, they attracted primarily cutting-edge musicians.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to that of the argument above?

(A) Our view of pre-printing-press literature can never be accurate, because the surviving works of ancient authors are those that were deemed by copyists most likely to be of interest to future readers.

(B) Our memory of 1960s TV shows could hardly be improved, because so many of the television programs of the era are still rerun today.

(C) Future generations' understanding of today's publishing trends will be distorted if they judge by works published in CD-ROM format, since it is primarily publishers interested in computer games that are using CD-ROM.

(D) Our understanding of silent films is incomplete, because few filmmakers of the time realized that the film stock they were using would disintegrate over time.

(E) Our notion of fashion trends will probably be accurate if we rely on TV fashion programs, despite the fact that these programs deliberately select the most outrageous outfits in order to get the viewers' attention.

How might we tackle this question?

✓ Identify the conclusion and support of the original argument. We can start by breaking down the argument. What is the arguer’s primary conclusion, and what information is provided to support that conclusion?

Conclusion

The impression you get from watching music videos from the 1970s—that the music of the time was dominated by synthesizer pop and punk rock— is a misleading impression.

because

Support

Music videos were a new art form at the time, [so]
They attracted primarily cutting-edge musicians.

✓ Consider diagramming the passage’s structure. Matching structure questions often involve linking conditional statements. Because these can sometimes be hard to keep straight in your head—and because the same conditional relationships can be expressed in so many different ways in the English language—many students find it helpful to diagram the statements in these cases.

In our example passage, we don’t really see several repeating terms or statements that are linked. Suppose, though, you see an argument such as the following:

Unless Brenda goes to the party, Jerome won’t go. Paul will only go if either Jerome or Talia goes, and neither Talia nor Brenda is going. Therefore, Paul won’t go.

If this kind of passage makes your brain hurt, try to diagram it, replacing all of those complicated English phrases into symbols.

not B $\to$ ‍ not J
P $\to$ ‍ J or T
P $\to$ ‍ not T and not B
Therefore, not P.

This diagram represents a template that we can then try to plug each choice into; the answer will have the same structure (although almost certainly with different variables). The wrong choices will possess a different argument structure.

✓ Characterize the conclusion. Is the argument’s conclusion of a distinct type?

Is the conclusion definite or indefinite?
Is the conclusion a prediction? A recommendation? Something else?

In our music example above, the conclusion is that a certain impression is misleading. That’s a definite conclusion (the arguer is certain), and it’s a statement that something is false.

✓ Characterize the argument in general terms. Suppose a diagram wouldn’t help and the argument doesn’t seem to fall into any familiar categories. That seems to be what we’re experiencing here. What can you do?

One technique is to re-write the argument in more general, abstract terms, using our argument breakdown. Once again, here’s our argument structure:

Conclusion

[The impression you get from watching music videos from the 1970s—that the music of the time was dominated by synthesizer pop and punk rock—] is actually a misleading impression

because

Support

Music videos were a new art form at the time, [so]
They attracted primarily cutting-edge musicians.

Ignoring the specifics, we can describe the structure like this:

The impression we get about a certain thing (from the examples we see) is misleading because it comes from an unrepresentative sample of that thing.

With this general blueprint, it should be easier to find a matching argument.

✓ Eliminate choices with noticeable mismatches. One way to begin evaluating choices is to eliminate a choice as soon as its conclusion doesn’t match. This could save a significant amount of time, especially in cases in which you can eliminate three or more choices based on the conclusion alone. We’ll also keep our general characterization in mind, which is:

“We might get a certain impression about a certain thing, but that impression would be misleading because it comes from an unrepresentative sample of that thing.”

This choice isn’t similar to the passage in its reasoning, because the conclusion here asserts that a certain view can never be accurate. This isn’t similar to the passage’s conclusion, which states that a certain impression is misleading. That is, it’s not inaccurate but it’s just not the whole picture.

(B) Our memory of 1960s TV shows could hardly be improved, because so many of the television programs of the era are still rerun today.

This choice isn’t similar to the passage in its reasoning, because it’s the opposite conclusion of what we’re looking for. In (B), the arguer believes that our memory of 1960s TV shows could hardly be improved—in other words, that it’s just about as good as it can get. This is in contrast to the passage, which concludes that a certain impression is misleading.

This is the answer. Our general characterization of the passage was, “We might get a certain impression about a certain thing (today’s publishing trends), but that impression would be misleading because it comes from an unrepresentative sample of that thing (a sample of mostly publishers who are interested in computer games).”

(D) Our understanding of silent films is incomplete, because few filmmakers of the time realized that the film stock they were using would disintegrate over time.

This choice isn’t parallel to the passage’s argument in its reasoning. There isn’t an issue of a sample being representative of overall reality, the way we saw in the passage. Instead, the evidence concerns an event that filmmakers didn’t realize would happen. It’s still possible that our impression of silent films would be accurate, even if we’re missing some silent films that disintegrated.

This choice’s conclusion isn’t similar to the passage’s conclusion: here, the arguer concludes that our notion of something will probably be accurate if we do something (rely on TV fashion programs). In contrast, the passage’s conclusion is that our impression of something is misleading, and there’s no condition stipulated to make that be the case.

Summary

✓ Identify the conclusion and support of the original argument
✓ Consider diagramming the passage’s structure
✓ Characterize the conclusion
✓ Characterize the argument in general terms
✓ Eliminate choices with noticeable mismatches

Common Incorrect Choices

Definite instead of indefinite conclusion, and vice versa: A definite conclusion in the passage will usually match with a definite conclusion in the answer, though this isn't a hard-and-fast rule.
Wrong type of conclusion: A prediction (for example) as a conclusion in the passage will usually match with a prediction as the conclusion in the answer—again, not a hard-and-fast rule.
Necessary versus sufficient relationships: If conditional relationships are present, be careful to not rush through them. “X must happen in order for Y is to happen” (Y $\to$ ‍ X) is a totally different relationship than “If X happens, then Y will happen” (X $\to$ ‍ Y), even though at first glance, the terms appear in the same order in each sentence.

For more help on conditional logic, work through our favorite article on the topic, If X, then Y | Sufficiency and necessity.

Your turn!

Practice question 1

Damming the Merv River would provide irrigation for the dry land in its upstream areas; unfortunately, a dam would reduce agricultural productivity in the fertile land downstream by reducing the availability and quality of the water there. The productivity loss in the downstream area would be greater than the productivity gain upstream, so building a dam would yield no overall gain in agricultural productivity in the region as a whole.

The reasoning in the argument above most closely parallels that in which one of the following?

(Choice A)
Disease-causing bacteria in eggs can be destroyed by overcooking the eggs, but the eggs then become much less appetizing; health is more important than taste, however, so it is better to overcook eggs than not to do so.
(Choice B)
Increasing the price of transatlantic telephone calls will discourage many private individuals from making them. But since most transatlantic telephone calls are made by businesses, not by private individuals, a rate increase will not reduce telephone company profits.
(Choice C)
A new highway will allow suburban commuters to reach the city more quickly, but not without causing increased delays within the city that will more than offset any time saved on the highway. Therefore, the highway will not reduce suburban commuters' overall commuting time.
(Choice D)
Doctors can prescribe antibiotics for many minor illnesses, but antibiotics are expensive, and these illnesses can often be cured by rest alone. Therefore, it is better to rest at home than to see a doctor for these illnesses.
(Choice E)
(E) A certain chemical will kill garden pests that damage tomatoes, but that chemical will damage certain other plants more severely than the pests damage the tomatoes, so the only gardens that will benefit from the use of the chemical are those in which only tomatoes are grown.

The argument breaks down in the following way:

Conclusion

Building a dam would yield no overall gain in agricultural productivity in the region as a whole

because

Support

Damming the Merv River would provide irrigation for the dry land in its upstream areas, [but]
A dam would reduce agricultural productivity in the fertile land downstream by reducing the availability and quality of the water there.
The productivity loss in the downstream area would be greater than the productivity gain upstream.

What kind of conclusion is this?

Hint 3

The evidence is a comparison between how much the region would gain from the dam and how much the region would lose. In short, the upstream area would benefit but the downstream area would suffer, and we’re told that the downstream productivity loss is bigger than the upstream productivity gain.

Can you find the choice that reflects the same type of conclusion and the same type of evidence that we just outlined?

Practice question 2

Manuscripts written by first-time authors generally do not get serious attention by publishers except when these authors happen to be celebrities. My manuscript is unlikely to be taken seriously by publishers for I am a first-time author who is not a celebrity.

The structure of which one of the following arguments is most similar to the structure of the argument above?

(Choice A)
Challengers generally do not win elections unless the incumbent has become very unpopular. The incumbent in this election has become very unpopular. Therefore, the challenger may win.
(Choice B)
Fruit salad that contains bananas is ordinarily a boring dish unless it contains two or more exotic fruits. This fruit salad has bananas in it, and the only exotic fruit it has is guava. Thus, it will probably be boring.
(Choice C)
Thursday's city council meeting is likely to be poorly attended. Traditionally, council meetings are sparsely attended if zoning issues are the only ones on the agenda. The agenda for Thursday is exclusively devoted to zoning.
(Choice D)
The bulk of an estate generally goes to the spouse, if surviving, and otherwise goes to the surviving children. In this case there is no surviving spouse; hence the bulk of the estate is likely to go to the surviving children.
(Choice E)
Normally about 40 percent of the deer population will die over the winter unless it is extremely mild. The percentage of the deer population that died over the recent winter was the normal 40 percent. I conclude that the recent winter was not unusually mild.

In general terms, the arguer gives a principle with one exception, and the arguer doesn’t fit the exception. In specific terms, usually publishers won’t give serious attention to first-time authors unless they’re celebrities, but the arguer is a first-time author and not a celebrity.

Which choice shows reasoning similar to this, with a conclusion of something that probably won’t happen, because an exception to a rule isn’t met?

Takeaways

Consider skipping and coming back: Match the structure questions can often be good ones to skip and come back to later (or to skip and never come back!). They can be very time-consuming in certain cases, and the time required to get a matching structure question correct can often yield several points in easier questions instead.
Match conclusions, then guess: Some students who find themselves short on time like to give themselves a better mathematical chance at guessing correctly by at least eliminating choices whose conclusions don’t match the conclusion in the argument, and then guessing from among the remaining choices.
Think big picture: If and when you do tackle these questions, be sure to pay attention to structure more than the topic itself.

Want to join the conversation?

Sort by:

Calic
Posted 3 years ago. Direct link to Calic's post “How are the manuscript an...”
How are the manuscript and the fruit salad the same structure? The fruit salad had one positive while the manuscript had none. If the fruit salad didn't have guava, it could be a parallel.
Button navigates to signup pageComment on Calic's post “How are the manuscript an...”
(5 votes)
Answer
Nymisha Desai
Posted 8 months ago. Direct link to Nymisha Desai's post “Does it matter if they're...”
Does it matter if they're positively or negatively coded?
Button navigates to signup pageComment on Nymisha Desai's post “Does it matter if they're...”
(1 vote)
Answer
Cassady Tercek
Posted a year ago. Direct link to Cassady Tercek's post “"Unless Brenda goes to th...”
"Unless Brenda goes to the party, Jerome won’t go."
How does this diagram to not B -> not J?
Doesn't unless signify a necessary condition making the diagram: not J -> B and the contrapositive not B -> J?
Button navigates to signup pageComment on Cassady Tercek's post “"Unless Brenda goes to th...”
(1 vote)
Answer