Identify the Technique: Logical Reasoning Worked Examples for LSAT Prep
"Identify the technique" questions, also known as "method of reasoning" or "argumentative technique" questions, ask you to describe how an argument proceeds or what strategy the author uses. Unlike other question types that ask you to evaluate whether an argument is strong or weak, these questions focus purely on describing the argumentative structure and reasoning pattern used by the author.
These questions typically represent 3-5% of all Logical Reasoning questions on the LSAT. The Law School Admission Council tests your ability to recognize common argumentative patterns, identify reasoning techniques, and accurately describe how arguments are constructed. Mastering these questions requires familiarity with standard reasoning patterns and the ability to match abstract descriptions to concrete arguments.
Understanding Identify the Technique Questions
What Makes These Questions Unique?
Identify the technique questions are descriptive, not evaluative. You're not judging whether the argument is good or bad, strong or weak. Instead, you're describing the method the author uses to reach their conclusion. Think of it as being a commentator explaining the strategy a chess player is using, rather than judging whether the strategy will succeed.
Common Question Stems
Classic Variations You'll Encounter:
- "The argument proceeds by..."
- "The reasoning above does which one of the following?"
- "Which one of the following most accurately describes the technique of reasoning employed?"
- "The argument employs which one of the following argumentative strategies?"
- "Which one of the following describes the method of the argument?"
- "The pattern of reasoning displayed above is most similar to that in which one of the following?"
Core Strategy for Technique Questions
Five-Step Systematic Approach
Step 1Identify the Conclusion
Before you can describe how an argument proceeds, you must know where it's going. Locate the main conclusion first. Look for conclusion indicators like "therefore," "thus," "so," "hence," or "consequently."
Step 2Identify the Evidence/Premises
What support does the author provide for the conclusion? Distinguish between background information (context) and actual evidence (premises used to support the conclusion).
Step 3Describe the Relationship in Your Own Words
Before looking at answer choices, articulate how the evidence connects to the conclusion. Ask yourself: "What technique is the author using here? Is it analogy? Cause and effect? Generalization? Counterexample?"
Step 4Match Your Description to Abstract Language
Answer choices will use formal, abstract language to describe reasoning patterns. Your job is to match the concrete argument in the stimulus to these abstract descriptions.
Step 5Verify Complete Accuracy
The correct answer must accurately describe every significant element of the argument's reasoning. If any part of the answer choice doesn't match the stimulus, eliminate it.
Common Reasoning Patterns
Pattern 1: Reasoning by Analogy
Structure: Situation A has certain characteristics and outcome. Situation B has similar characteristics. Therefore, Situation B will likely have a similar outcome.
Abstract Description: "Draws a conclusion about one case based on its similarity to another case"
Example Signal: "Just as X resulted in Y, so too will Z result in Y"
Pattern 2: Generalization from Sample
Structure: Specific instances or examples show a pattern. Therefore, this pattern holds generally.
Abstract Description: "Infers a general conclusion from specific instances" or "Draws a statistical generalization from observations"
Example Signal: Multiple specific cases → general rule
Pattern 3: Counterexample
Structure: Someone claims "All X are Y." The argument provides an example of X that is not Y, thereby refuting the claim.
Abstract Description: "Refutes a generalization by providing a counterexample"
Example Signal: "But consider this case where X is not Y..."
Pattern 4: Cause and Effect
Structure: Event A occurred, then Event B occurred. Therefore, A caused B. Or: whenever A occurs, B follows, so A causes B.
Abstract Description: "Establishes a causal relationship based on correlation" or "Argues that one phenomenon causes another"
Example Signal: "Since A happened and then B happened, A caused B"
Pattern 5: Application of General Principle
Structure: General rule or principle stated. Specific case presented. Conclusion applies the general rule to the specific case.
Abstract Description: "Applies a general principle to a particular case"
Example Signal: "According to principle X, and since this case fits X, therefore..."
Pattern 6: Eliminating Alternatives
Structure: There are several possible explanations. The argument eliminates all but one. Therefore, the remaining explanation must be correct.
Abstract Description: "Argues for a conclusion by eliminating alternative possibilities"
Example Signal: "It could be A, B, or C. But not A because... and not B because... therefore C"
Pattern 7: Pointing Out Consequences
Structure: If we accept claim X, then undesirable consequence Y would follow. Therefore, we shouldn't accept claim X.
Abstract Description: "Argues against a position by demonstrating undesirable consequences"
Example Signal: "If X were true, then Y would happen, which is unacceptable"
Worked Example 1: Official LSAC Question
Magazine Advertisement Analysis
Executive: We recently ran a set of advertisements in the print version of a travel magazine and on that magazine's website. We were unable to get any direct information about consumer response to the print ads. However, we found that consumer response to the ads on the website was much more limited than is typical for website ads. We concluded that consumer response to the print ads was probably below par as well.
The executive's reasoning does which one of the following?
Answer Choices:
Detailed Solution
Step 1Identify the Conclusion
The conclusion is stated in the final sentence: "consumer response to the print ads was probably below par as well." The word "concluded" directly signals this is the main claim.
Step 2Identify the Evidence
The evidence consists of two key facts:
- Fact 1: Direct information about print ad response was unavailable
- Fact 2: Website ad response was "much more limited than is typical"
The background context is that both ads ran for the same magazine (print version and website).
Step 3Describe the Reasoning Pattern
Let's trace the logical structure:
The executive is using information from one case (website ads, where data is available) to draw a conclusion about a similar case (print ads, where data is unavailable). This is reasoning by analogy.
Step 4Match to Abstract Language
Now we need to find an answer choice that describes this pattern in formal terms. Let's map our concrete understanding to abstract terms:
- "Case where direct evidence is available" = website ads (we have response data)
- "Analogous case where direct evidence is unavailable" = print ads (no response data)
- "Uses one case to draw conclusion about the other" = reasoning by analogy
AnswerWhy (D) Is Correct
Choice (D) states: "uses a case in which direct evidence is available to draw a conclusion about an analogous case in which direct evidence is unavailable"
This perfectly describes the reasoning:
- ✓ "case in which direct evidence is available" = website ad response data
- ✓ "analogous case" = print ads (analogous because they're for the same magazine)
- ✓ "direct evidence is unavailable" = no data on print ad response
- ✓ "draw a conclusion about" = the executive concludes print ads probably underperformed
EliminationWhy Other Answers Are Wrong
(A) "bases a prediction of the intensity of a phenomenon on information about the intensity of that phenomenon's cause"
The executive doesn't discuss causes. There's no reasoning about what caused the poor website response or what might cause poor print response. The argument moves from one effect to another analogous effect, not from cause to effect.
(B) "uses information about the typical frequency of events of a general kind to draw a conclusion about the probability of a particular event of that kind"
This is backwards. The executive uses information about a specific event (this particular website ad's performance) to conclude something about another specific event (this particular print ad's performance). While the executive mentions what's "typical for website ads" as a comparison point, that's not the basis of the conclusion about print ads.
(C) "infers a statistical generalization from claims about a large number of specific instances"
There's only one specific instance discussed (the website ad response), not "a large number." And the conclusion isn't a general statistical claim—it's a conclusion about one other specific case (the print ads).
(E) "bases a prediction about future events on facts about recent comparable events"
The conclusion isn't about future events. Both the website ads and print ads have already run. The executive is drawing a conclusion about past performance (the print ad response that already happened but wasn't measured), not predicting what will happen in the future.
Notice how the correct answer uses abstract, formal language that might sound complex, but it precisely matches the concrete reasoning in the stimulus. Don't be intimidated by terminology like "analogous case" or "direct evidence unavailable." Break these phrases down and match them piece by piece to what actually happens in the argument.
Worked Example 2: Counterexample Pattern
Poetry and Political Action
Critic's Claim: Any contemporary poet who writes formal poetry—poetry that is rhymed and metered—is performing a politically conservative act.
Response: This is plainly false. Consider Molly Peacock and Marilyn Hacker, two contemporary poets whose poetry is almost exclusively formal and yet who are themselves politically progressive feminists.
Which one of the following best describes the argumentative technique used in the response?
Answer Choices:
Step-by-Step Analysis
StructureIdentify the Claim Being Refuted
The critic makes a universal claim: "Any contemporary poet who writes formal poetry is performing a politically conservative act."
In logical terms: All formal poets → conservative acts
This is a sweeping generalization with no exceptions implied.
EvidenceIdentify What the Response Provides
The response provides two specific examples:
- Molly Peacock: writes formal poetry + politically progressive feminist
- Marilyn Hacker: writes formal poetry + politically progressive feminist
These are examples of formal poets who are NOT performing conservative acts (they're progressive). They directly contradict the universal claim.
TechniqueRecognize the Reasoning Pattern
The logical structure is classic counterexample reasoning:
To refute a claim that "all X are Y," you only need one example of X that is not Y. The response provides two such examples, making the refutation even stronger.
AnswerWhy (C) Is Correct
"Refuting a universal claim by providing counterexamples"
This precisely describes what happens:
- ✓ "universal claim" = "any contemporary poet who writes formal poetry"
- ✓ "refuting" = "This is plainly false"
- ✓ "counterexamples" = Peacock and Hacker (plural because there are two)
- ✓ The examples directly contradict what the universal claim asserts
EliminationWhy Other Answers Fail
(A) Questioning the motives of the person making the original claim
The response never discusses the critic's motives, intentions, or character. It directly addresses the claim itself with evidence, not ad hominem reasoning.
(B) Providing examples that demonstrate the aesthetic value of formal poetry
The examples are not about aesthetic value. They're about the political orientation of poets who write formal poetry. The response doesn't argue formal poetry is beautiful or valuable—it argues that it's not necessarily conservative.
(D) Showing that the claim leads to an absurd conclusion
This would be reductio ad absurdum reasoning: "If X were true, then absurd consequence Y would follow, so X must be false." The response doesn't use this technique. It doesn't derive consequences from the claim; it provides direct counterexamples.
(E) Arguing that formal poetry and progressive politics are causally connected
The response doesn't claim formal poetry causes progressive politics or vice versa. It simply provides examples of poets who combine both, refuting the claim that formal poetry is always conservative. There's no causal argument here.
Counterexample patterns are easy to spot when you see phrases like "Consider this case..." or "But what about..." followed by specific examples that contradict a general claim. The structure is always: General rule stated → Specific exception provided → Therefore, general rule is false or too broad.
Worked Example 3: Generalization Pattern
Bridge Safety Analysis
During the construction of the Quebec Bridge in 1907, the bridge's designer received word that the suspended span was deflecting downward by a fraction of an inch. Before he could freeze the project, the whole cantilever arm broke off and plunged, along with seven dozen workers, into the St. Lawrence River. It was the worst bridge construction disaster in history. As a direct result of the inquiry that followed, the engineering "rules of thumb" by which thousands of bridges had been built around the world went down with the Quebec Bridge. Twentieth-century bridge engineers would thereafter depend on far more rigorous applications of mathematical analysis.
The argument suggests that the Quebec Bridge disaster led to a change in engineering practices by:
Answer Choices:
Complete Solution
AnalysisIdentify the Causal Sequence
The passage describes a historical process:
- One specific disaster occurs (Quebec Bridge collapse)
- An inquiry follows this specific disaster
- As a result, engineering practices change broadly ("thousands of bridges," "twentieth-century bridge engineers")
The key transition is from a single case to a general change in practice.
TechniqueRecognize the Reasoning Pattern
This is reasoning from specific to general:
(Quebec Bridge failure)
(All bridge engineering should change)
The significance of this single event was so great ("worst bridge construction disaster in history") that it prompted reconsideration of general engineering practices worldwide.
AnswerWhy (D) Is Correct
"Drawing a general conclusion about engineering practices from one significant case"
- ✓ "one significant case" = the Quebec Bridge disaster (explicitly called "worst bridge construction disaster in history")
- ✓ "general conclusion about engineering practices" = abandoning rules of thumb used for "thousands of bridges" and changing how "twentieth-century bridge engineers" work
- ✓ "drawing...from" = the causal connection indicated by "as a direct result"
EliminationAnalyzing Wrong Answers
(A) Using a single catastrophic failure to demonstrate inadequacy of existing methods
This is close but not quite right. The passage doesn't say the disaster "demonstrated" inadequacy—it says the disaster happened, an inquiry followed, and then practices changed. The focus is on drawing a broad conclusion from one case, not on demonstration or proof of inadequacy.
(B) Comparing multiple bridge failures to establish a pattern of engineering errors
The passage discusses only one bridge failure (Quebec Bridge), not multiple failures. There's no comparison to other disasters or pattern identification across cases.
(C) Conducting mathematical analysis to prove rules of thumb were always wrong
The passage doesn't say mathematical analysis proved the rules of thumb were "always wrong." It says engineers thereafter depended on more rigorous mathematical analysis, but this doesn't mean the old methods never worked—just that they were insufficient.
(E) Eliminating all traditional engineering methods in favor of new techniques
Too extreme. The passage says rules of thumb were abandoned and more rigorous mathematical analysis was adopted, but it doesn't say "all traditional engineering methods" were eliminated. The change was specifically about moving from rules of thumb to rigorous mathematical analysis.
Common Traps in Technique Questions
Avoid These Pitfalls
Don't focus on what the argument says (the content); focus on how it says it (the technique). The correct answer describes the structure and method, not the subject matter.
Every element of the correct answer must match the argument. If an answer correctly describes one aspect but mischaracterizes another, it's wrong.
Answer choices use formal logical vocabulary that might sound impressive but may not match what the argument actually does. Always translate abstract language back to the concrete argument.
Don't assume an argument follows a common pattern just because it seems similar to others you've seen. Read carefully and verify each element matches.
Pay attention to whether reasoning goes from general to specific, specific to general, or from one specific case to another analogous case. Direction matters.
Key Reasoning Patterns Reference Guide
| Pattern Name | Abstract Description | Concrete Example |
|---|---|---|
| Reasoning by Analogy | Uses similarity between two cases to draw a conclusion about one based on the other | "City A reduced traffic with bike lanes. City B is similar to City A. Therefore, bike lanes will reduce traffic in City B." |
| Counterexample | Refutes a universal claim by providing an instance that contradicts it | "All swans are white. But here's a black swan. Therefore, not all swans are white." |
| Generalization | Draws a general conclusion from specific instances or observations | "These 100 randomly selected voters support the policy. Therefore, most voters support it." |
| Cause and Effect | Argues that one phenomenon causes or is caused by another | "Whenever interest rates rise, housing sales fall. Interest rates just rose. Therefore, housing sales will fall." |
| Eliminating Alternatives | Rules out all possibilities except one, concluding that remaining possibility is correct | "The cause is either A, B, or C. Tests rule out A and B. Therefore, C is the cause." |
| Reductio ad Absurdum | Argues against a claim by showing it leads to absurd or unacceptable consequences | "If that policy were good, it would mean X. But X is absurd. Therefore, the policy is not good." |
| Appeal to Authority | Supports a conclusion by citing expert opinion or authoritative source | "Leading climate scientists agree that X is true. Therefore, X is probably true." |
| Challenging Assumption | Identifies and questions an unstated assumption in an opposing argument | "Your argument assumes X is true, but you provide no evidence for X. Therefore, your conclusion is unsupported." |
Practice Strategies for Mastery
Building Pattern Recognition
- Create a Pattern Library: As you practice, keep a notebook of arguments organized by reasoning pattern. This builds your mental database of how different techniques look in practice.
- Paraphrase Before Matching: Always describe the reasoning in your own simple words before looking at answer choices. This prevents you from being led astray by complex abstract language.
- Practice Translation: Take abstract descriptions from answer choices and create your own simple examples. This strengthens your ability to move between concrete and abstract.
- Analyze Wrong Answers: When you miss a question, identify not just why the right answer is correct, but specifically what made each wrong answer incorrect.
- Compare Similar Patterns: Study the differences between closely related patterns (e.g., analogy vs. generalization vs. principle application) to sharpen your discrimination.
Advanced Techniques
The Matching Test: For each element of an answer choice, point to the specific part of the stimulus it describes. If you can't find a match for every element, that answer is wrong.
The Direction Check: Identify whether reasoning flows:
- General → Specific (application of principle)
- Specific → General (generalization)
- Specific → Specific (analogy)
- Claim → Refutation (counterexample)
The Complete Coverage Test: Does the answer describe ALL significant moves in the argument, or does it leave out important elements? The correct answer captures the complete reasoning structure.
Official LSAT Prep Resources
Law School Admission Council - Official Resources
Primary Official Source: LSAC Official Website
Free Official Resources:
- LawHub Prep: Free Official LSAT Prep Platform - Authentic LSAT questions including method of reasoning types
- Sample Questions: Official Logical Reasoning Sample Questions - Includes identify the technique examples
- Test Format Guide: Official LSAT Test Format Information
Premium Official Resources:
- LawHub Advantage: Comprehensive PrepTest library with detailed explanations ($115-120/year)
- Official LSAT PrepTests: Individual tests and bundles with real questions from past administrations
- Official LSAT SuperPrep: Official guide with real tests and LSAC-written explanations
Khan Academy Free LSAT Prep
Official Partnership with LSAC: Khan Academy LSAT Preparation
Completely free LSAT prep in partnership with LSAC, featuring:
- Identify the Technique Lessons: Dedicated instruction on method of reasoning questions
- Official LSAT questions organized by question type
- Video explanations for all question types including technique identification
- Personalized practice based on your performance
- Full-length official PrepTests with detailed analytics
Frequently Asked Questions
"Identify the technique" questions ask you to describe HOW an argument proceeds, without evaluating whether the reasoning is good or bad. These are purely descriptive. "Identify the flaw" questions ask you to identify what's WRONG with an argument—they're evaluative. In technique questions, you might describe "reasoning by analogy" without saying whether that analogy is strong or weak. In flaw questions, you'd identify "false analogy" or "weak analogy" as the problem with the reasoning.
The LSAT uses formal, abstract language to test whether you truly understand the reasoning structure, not just the content. This forces you to think analytically about HOW arguments work, which is essential for legal reasoning. The abstraction also allows one description to potentially apply to multiple different content areas—the same reasoning pattern appears in arguments about science, politics, art, and more. Learning to translate between concrete arguments and abstract descriptions is a crucial law school skill.
Familiarize yourself with common patterns, but don't rely on rote memorization. The LSAT tests understanding, not recall. Instead, practice analyzing many arguments until pattern recognition becomes intuitive. When you encounter an argument, first describe it in your own words using simple language. Then match that description to formal terminology. This process—concrete to abstract—is more reliable than trying to match an argument to memorized categories. Focus on understanding the logical structure of how premises connect to conclusions.
The correct answer must be COMPLETELY accurate—every element must match the stimulus. Apply the matching test: for each part of the answer choice, point to where that element appears in the argument. If an answer is 80% right but 20% wrong, it's a wrong answer. Common mistakes include answers that correctly identify one aspect of reasoning but incorrectly describe another, or answers that describe what the argument could have done but didn't actually do. Be rigorous: the entire answer must accurately describe the entire reasoning process.
Focus on the direction and structure of reasoning. Analogy moves from one specific case to another specific case based on similarity. Generalization moves from specific instances to a general rule. Applying a principle moves from a general rule to a specific case. Counterexample provides a specific instance that contradicts a general claim. Pay attention to whether the argument starts with the general or specific, where it ends, and what relationship connects them. Also watch for key phrases: "similarly," "likewise" suggest analogy; "therefore generally," "in most cases" suggest generalization; "according to the rule" suggests principle application.
Yes, though they're relatively uncommon. Expect 3-5 method of reasoning questions across both Logical Reasoning sections, or about 2-3 per section on average. While less frequent than assumption, strengthen, or weaken questions, they follow predictable patterns once you learn them. Because they're formula-driven, many test-takers find them to be reliable point opportunities once they master the common reasoning patterns. The key is recognizing that the same patterns recur across different content areas.
Yes, complex arguments may combine techniques, but the correct answer will describe the PRIMARY or OVERALL method. For example, an argument might use analogy to establish a point, then apply a general principle. The correct answer will identify whichever technique is central to how the conclusion is reached. If you notice multiple techniques, look for which one is the main logical move—usually the final step that establishes the conclusion. The question will often guide you: "primary technique," "main method," or "overall strategy" signal they want the dominant pattern.
These questions typically take 1.5-2 minutes once you're proficient. They can be faster than assumption or flaw questions because you're describing what's there, not evaluating quality or finding what's missing. The time-consuming part is carefully matching abstract language to concrete reasoning. Speed comes from pattern recognition—the more examples you've seen, the faster you'll recognize the structure. During practice, take as long as needed to understand thoroughly. Under timed conditions, if you can describe the reasoning in your own words within 30 seconds, you're on track for a quick answer.
Key Takeaways for Success
Essential Principles to Remember
- Description, Not Evaluation: These questions ask HOW the argument proceeds, not whether it's good or bad. Never evaluate quality when identifying technique.
- Match Every Element: The correct answer must accurately describe every significant aspect of the reasoning. Partial matches are wrong answers.
- Concrete to Abstract: Always describe the argument in simple terms first, then match to formal language. Don't start with abstract categories.
- Direction Matters: Pay attention to whether reasoning flows general to specific, specific to general, or specific to specific. This distinguishes many patterns.
- Verify with the Stimulus: For each element of an answer choice, point to where it appears in the argument. If you can't, eliminate that answer.
- Learn Pattern Recognition: Familiarize yourself with common reasoning structures, but don't rely on memorization. Understand the logical relationships.
- Practice with Official Questions: Use LSAC materials through LawHub and Khan Academy to ensure authentic practice with real LSAT reasoning patterns.
Master LSAT Method of Reasoning Questions
Build pattern recognition skills with official LSAT practice questions and expert instruction.
Start Free Official LSAT Prep Practice on Khan AcademyDiscover more LSAT prep resources and worked examples at RevisionTown.com
Keep an "identify the technique" log. For each practice question, note: (1) the reasoning pattern you identified, (2) the correct answer description, (3) why wrong answers failed. After 20-30 questions, you'll see which patterns you recognize quickly and which need more practice. This targeted review is far more efficient than random practice and accelerates your progress toward mastery.