Logical reasoning strategies and techniques - Anticipating c...

Learning Outcomes

After studying this article, you will know when and how to use pre-phrasing (answer anticipation) in LSAT Logical Reasoning. You will be able to break down argument structure, predict needed answer types for major question types, and use pre-phrasing to eliminate close distractors. You will also understand the risks of overly rigid pre-phrasing and strategies to maximize both speed and accuracy.

LSAT Syllabus

For LSAT Logical Reasoning, you must quickly analyse argument structure and select the correct answer choice from several close contenders. This article focuses on sharpening your approach in the following revision areas:

For revision, focus on:

• recognising where and how to anticipate answers in major LSAT Logical Reasoning question types
• practising targeted pre-phrasing based on question stem and argument structure
• combining argument breakdown with pre-phrasing to identify and eliminate wrong answers fast
• understanding how answer choices exploit typical pre-phrasing traps and how to avoid being misled

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. Why does pre-phrasing improve your accuracy on LSAT Logical Reasoning questions?
   1. It lets you guess instantly.
   2. It keeps you focused on what a correct answer must accomplish.
   3. It always predicts the actual answer wording.
   4. It means you never need to check the choices.
2. For which question type is pre-phrasing especially effective?
   1. Weaken and Strengthen
   2. Only Main Point
   3. Just Flaw
   4. All equally
3. What should you do if none of the answer choices match your pre-phrase exactly?
   1. Reread the question stem.
   2. Switch to random guessing.
   3. Look for an answer that logically matches your prediction, even if the wording is different.
   4. Pick the longest answer.

Introduction

In LSAT Logical Reasoning, correct answer choices are often closely worded and designed to mislead those who only read passively. Pre-phrasing—predicting what the right answer must do—is a proven strategy for LSAT success. This technique allows you to focus on the logic required by both the stimulus and the question stem, helping you spot correct answers quickly and avoid falling for common distractors.

What Is Pre-Phrasing and Why Use It?

Pre-phrasing (sometimes called "anticipating answers") means forming a mental prediction—your own paraphrase—of what the correct answer must accomplish before reviewing the five answer choices. Unlike hoping to guess the exact words, pre-phrasing guides you to match reasoning, not mere language.

Key Term: pre-phrasing
Creating a brief mental prediction of what the correct LSAT answer must achieve based on the argument and the question task.

The Pre-Phrasing Process Step-by-Step

1. Read the stimulus carefully. Identify the main conclusion, premises, and any logical gaps or flaws.
2. Read the question stem to clarify the specific task (e.g., strengthen, weaken, assumption).
3. Before viewing the answer choices, pause to ask: "What must the correct answer do?" Predict, even roughly, what a correct answer would need to say or show.
4. As you review choices, look for one that achieves your predicted outcome—diagnose logic, not just overlap in words.

When Is Pre-Phrasing Most Useful?

Pre-phrasing is most effective for:

• Strengthen and Weaken questions (predict the evidence or logic needed to affect the argument)
• Flaw and Descriptive Weakness questions (summarize the error in reasoning)
• Main Point and Conclusion questions (paraphrase the argument's key claim)

For questions requiring formal logic, detailed matching, or abstract comparisons (e.g., Parallel Reasoning), pre-phrasing can help focus your search, but expect your prediction to be more general.

Key Term: stimulus
The paragraph or argument appearing before the LSAT Logical Reasoning question stem and answer choices.

How Pre-Phrasing Fits With Argument Breakdown

Pre-phrasing works best when combined with breaking down the argument:

• For Flaw: Predict the logical weakness (“Fails to consider...”, “Assumes...”).
• For Assumption: Predict the missing but needed connector.
• For Strengthen/Weaken: Predict what must be proved or challenged between premise and conclusion.

Having your own prediction keeps you anchored, so you are not steered off-track by attractive yet incorrect choices that echo superficial features of the argument but not its logic.

Worked Example 1.1

Argument:
"Most people who regularly consume large amounts of caffeine do not suffer sleep problems. Therefore, caffeine does not cause sleep disturbance for anyone."

Flaw question: What is the flaw in this reasoning?

Answer:
The argument generalizes from "most" (the majority) to "anyone" (everyone), which is not justified. A good pre-phrase would be: "Mistakenly infers a universal conclusion from evidence about most cases—overgeneralization." The correct answer would say something similar, even if the phrasing is different.

Strategy for Applying Pre-Phrasing

• Focus on the reasoning task, not expecting exact wording.
• Use your pre-phrase to eliminate any answer not matching the needed logical function.
• If the argument makes multiple errors, focus your prediction on the main one.

Worked Example 1.2

Argument:
"People in the study who used noise-cancelling headphones in noisy offices reported better concentration than those who used standard headphones. Thus, noise-cancelling technology increases productivity for all office workers."

Strengthen question: Which answer, if true, most strengthens the argument?

Answer:
A good pre-phrase is: "Show that concentration equals productivity, or rule out alternative explanations for the improved concentration."
The correct answer needs to either equate concentration gains with productivity or show that no other factors (such as different office types) mattered.

Dealing With Pre-Phrase Mismatches

Sometimes, no answer seems to match your prediction exactly. In these cases:

• Do not eliminate all choices—look for an answer that achieves the same logical function, even with different wording.
• Double-check your reading of the stimulus and question stem. Sometimes your pre-phrase missed a subtle shift in logic.

Key Term: distractor
An incorrect LSAT answer choice constructed to attract test-takers, often by echoing content from the argument or preying on predictable errors.

Key Term: question stem
The sentence following the stimulus that specifies what you are supposed to do (e.g. "Which one of the following, if true...").

Worked Example 1.3

Argument:
"Many textbooks are written by experts with years of experience. Some popular magazines are written by experts too. Therefore, many textbooks are popular magazines."

Main Point question: What is the issue with the logic?

Answer:
A good pre-phrase: "Confuses shared authorship with shared identity—invalidly assumes overlap based on a common property." Look for an answer that notes the mistaken inference from a shared attribute to complete equivalence, regardless of wording.

Revision Tip

Before reviewing answer choices, always pause a few seconds to form your pre-phrase. Use a brief note if needed (e.g., “needs to link A and B”, “overlooks possibility C”).

Strategy Table

Exam Warning

If the correct answer choice uses a term or phrase you did not predict, do not discard it if it matches your predicted logic. The strongest distractors often restate irrelevant details very closely to "fit" your pre-phrase superficially.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Pre-phrasing is forming a brief, logic-focused prediction for the correct LSAT answer before reviewing options
• This strategy is particularly effective for Strengthen/Weaken, Main Point, and Flaw question types
• Pre-phrasing, combined with argument breakdown, improves both speed and accuracy in elimination
• Rigidly matching only exact words is a common error—always check for logical equivalence
• If no answer matches your pre-phrase, check for answers serving the same function
• Pre-phrasing must always be based entirely on the requirements from the question stem and argument, not outside knowledge

Key Terms and Concepts

• pre-phrasing
• stimulus
• distractor
• question stem