Identify the Technique: Master LSAT Method of Reasoning Questions

Learn proven strategies to analyze argument structure, recognize reasoning methods, and ace identify the technique questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning section with official examples and expert guidance.

Identify the technique questions, also called method of reasoning questions, are a distinctive question type in the LSAT Logical Reasoning section that test your ability to describe how an argument works rather than what it says. These questions ask you to step back from the specific content and identify the argumentative strategy, logical structure, or reasoning method the author employs.

The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) includes method of reasoning questions to assess your capacity to analyze the architecture of arguments—a fundamental skill for legal analysis. Unlike content-focused questions, these require you to abstract away from specific details and recognize the underlying logical patterns and techniques that give arguments their persuasive force.

What Are Identify the Technique Questions

Identify the technique questions present an argument or dialogue and ask you to describe the method of reasoning employed. The challenge lies in recognizing the structural pattern of the argument while ignoring the specific subject matter.

📌 Common Question Stems

"The argument proceeds by..."
"Which of the following is a technique of reasoning used in the argument?"
"The executive's reasoning does which one of the following?"
"The method of argumentation used above is best described as..."
"Speaker Z responds to Speaker X's argument by doing which one of the following?"
"In her argument, the author's reasoning does which of the following?"

Key Characteristics of Technique Questions

Method of reasoning questions have several distinguishing features that set them apart from other Logical Reasoning question types:

Focus on structure, not content: The correct answer describes how the argument works, not what it claims
Abstract description: Correct answers use general, abstract language that could apply to many different arguments
Neutral evaluation: You're not judging whether the reasoning is good or bad—just describing what technique is used
Relationship between parts: These questions test how premises connect to conclusions and how different claims relate to each other
Single or dual arguments: Can involve one speaker's method or how one speaker responds to another

The Core Principle

Content (What is said) ≠ Method (How it's said)

Your focus must shift from analyzing the truth or validity of claims to identifying the argumentative technique being employed.

Official LSAC Example Analysis

Let's examine an official LSAT method of reasoning question from the Law School Admission Council to understand this question type in practice:

📚 Official LSAC Example

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?

bases a prediction of the intensity of a phenomenon on information about the intensity of that phenomenon's cause
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
infers a statistical generalization from claims about a large number of specific instances
uses a case in which direct evidence is available to draw a conclusion about an analogous case in which direct evidence is unavailable ✓
bases a prediction about future events on facts about recent comparable events

Step-by-Step Analysis

Step 1: Identify the Conclusion

The executive concludes: "consumer response to the print ads was probably below par as well."

Step 2: Identify the Evidence/Premises

Unable to get direct information about print ad response
Website ad response was much more limited than typical
Both ads ran in the same magazine (print and online versions)

Step 3: Abstract the Reasoning Method

The executive takes information from one case where data is available (website ads) and draws a conclusion about a related case where data is not available (print ads). This is reasoning by analogy.

🔄 Abstraction Process

Specific Content: "Website ads performed poorly, so print ads probably did too."

Abstract Structure: "Thing A (measurable) performed poorly. Thing B (not measurable) is similar to Thing A. Therefore, Thing B probably performed poorly too."

Step 4: Match to Answer Choice

Option (D) perfectly captures this method: "uses a case in which direct evidence is available (website ads) to draw a conclusion about an analogous case (print ads) in which direct evidence is unavailable."

✓ Why Option D is Correct

Accurately describes the structure: From known case to unknown case
Uses abstract language: "case," "direct evidence," "analogous case"
Captures the method: Reasoning from one situation to a similar situation
Matches every element: Evidence available → conclusion about case without evidence

Strategy for Solving Technique Questions

Success with identify the technique questions requires a systematic approach that focuses on structure over content. Follow these proven strategies recommended by LSAC and top LSAT instructors:

Identify the Question Type

Recognize method of reasoning questions immediately by their question stems. Look for phrases like "proceeds by," "technique of reasoning," "method of argumentation," or "reasoning does which of the following."

Find the Conclusion First

Identify the argument's main conclusion using conclusion keywords (therefore, thus, so, hence, consequently) or by asking "What is the author trying to prove?"

Identify the Evidence/Premises

Determine what evidence the author uses to support the conclusion. Look for premise indicators (because, since, given that, as) or facts that support the conclusion.

Abstract Away from Content

Replace specific terms with general concepts. Transform "economists surveyed" to "experts consulted," or "dolphins" to "animals of type X." Focus on the logical relationship, not the subject matter.

Predict the Method in General Terms

Before looking at answer choices, describe the reasoning method in your own abstract words: "uses an example to illustrate a general principle," or "presents evidence that undermines a claim."

Match Your Prediction to Answer Choices

Find the answer that best matches your abstract description. Eliminate answers that describe content instead of method, or that describe methods not actually used in the argument.

⚠️ Critical Mistake to Avoid

Don't get trapped by answer choices that accurately describe the content but not the method. An answer might correctly state what the argument says without correctly describing how it reasons. Always ask: "Does this describe the logical structure and technique, or just restate the content?"

Common Reasoning Methods on the LSAT

While arguments can use countless specific reasoning patterns, certain methods appear frequently on the LSAT. Familiarizing yourself with these common techniques accelerates your ability to identify them:

Reasoning Method	Description	Pattern
Analogy	Draws a parallel between two similar cases	X has property P → Y is like X → Y probably has P
Counterexample	Provides a specific case that contradicts a general claim	Claim: All X are Y → Example: This X is not Y → Claim false
Generalization	Draws a general conclusion from specific instances	Instance 1, 2, 3... all have P → Therefore all/most have P
Apply Principle to Case	Uses a general rule or principle to draw a conclusion about a specific situation	General rule R → Specific case fits R → Conclusion about case
Causal Reasoning	Argues that one thing causes another	Event A occurred → Event B occurred → A caused B
Eliminate Alternatives	Rules out other explanations to support one conclusion	Could be X, Y, or Z → Not X, not Y → Must be Z
Appeal to Authority	Cites expert opinion or authoritative source	Expert E says P → E is credible → P is likely true
Identify Inconsistency	Points out a contradiction in an opponent's position	Opponent claims X and Y → X contradicts Y → Position flawed

Dialogue-Specific Response Methods

When the question involves two speakers, you're usually asked how the second speaker responds to the first. Common response methods include:

🗣️ Common Dialogue Response Patterns

Challenges an assumption: Identifies and disputes an unstated premise
Offers alternative explanation: Provides a different account of the same facts
Questions relevance: Argues that evidence doesn't support the conclusion
Distinguishes cases: Points out relevant differences between situations
Accepts premise, disputes conclusion: Agrees with evidence but draws different conclusion
Uses same reasoning to reach opposite conclusion: Applies parallel logic to contrary result
Provides supporting evidence: Adds additional reasons to accept the first speaker's conclusion

The Abstraction Technique: From Specific to General

The most powerful skill for technique questions is abstraction—the ability to describe an argument's method without reference to its specific content. This mental transformation is the key to matching arguments to answer choices.

How to Abstract an Argument

🔄 Abstraction Process in Action

Original Argument:

"Most economists surveyed believe the recession will end within six months. Therefore, the recession will probably end within six months."

Step 1 - Replace Specific Terms:

"economists" → "experts in the field"
"recession will end" → "predicted outcome will occur"
"six months" → "specified timeframe"

Step 2 - Describe the Structure:

"Most experts believe outcome X will occur. Therefore, outcome X will probably occur."

Step 3 - Identify the Method:

"Appeals to expert opinion to support a prediction."

Practice Exercise: Abstract These Arguments

Argument 1: "The defendant was seen leaving the scene of the crime. This proves he committed the crime."

Abstraction: Takes evidence of presence at location as sufficient proof of action → Treats correlation as causation

Argument 2: "Company A increased productivity by 30% after implementing flexible work hours. Company B should implement flexible work hours to increase productivity."

Abstraction: Strategy worked for similar entity → Recommends same strategy → Reasons by analogy

Argument 3: "You claim all swans are white. But I saw a black swan in Australia. Therefore, your claim is false."

Abstraction: Universal claim made → Single contrary instance provided → Uses counterexample to refute generalization

The Abstraction Formula

Specific Terms → Generic Categories → Logical Relationship → Method Identified

Common Wrong Answer Traps

The LSAT includes predictable wrong answer types in method of reasoning questions. Recognizing these traps helps you eliminate incorrect choices efficiently:

1. Content Description Instead of Method

These answers accurately summarize what the argument says but fail to describe how it reasons. They restate conclusions or premises without identifying the logical technique.

Example: If an argument reasons "X happened, therefore Y will happen," a content answer might say "concludes that Y will happen based on X happening" without describing the reasoning method (prediction, causal inference, etc.).

2. Methods Not Actually Used

These answers describe valid reasoning methods that simply don't appear in the argument. They might describe analogy when the argument uses statistics, or counterexample when it uses generalization.

3. Partial Description

These answers correctly identify part of the reasoning but miss crucial elements. An argument might both cite expert opinion AND apply a principle, but the wrong answer only mentions one part.

4. Reversal or Distortion

These answers reverse the logical direction or distort the relationship between premises and conclusion. For instance, describing "uses evidence A to support B" when the argument actually uses B to support A.

5. Evaluation Instead of Description

These answers judge the argument as good or bad rather than neutrally describing its method. Method questions want objective description, not critical analysis.

✓ Elimination Strategy

For each answer choice, ask three questions:

Does it describe method or content? Eliminate if it just restates what's said.
Did the argument actually do this? Eliminate if the method wasn't used.
Does it capture the complete reasoning? Eliminate if it's only partial or distorted.

Dialogue Method of Reasoning Questions

A special category of method questions involves two speakers in dialogue, usually asking how the second speaker responds to the first. These require analyzing the relationship between arguments rather than describing a single argument's structure.

Key Types of Dialogue Responses

Response Pattern 1: Challenge an Assumption

Speaker A: Makes argument relying on unstated assumption

Speaker B: Identifies and disputes that hidden assumption

Abstract Description: "Challenges a presumption underlying the first speaker's argument"

Response Pattern 2: Offer Alternative Explanation

Speaker A: Observes phenomenon X and concludes Y explains it

Speaker B: Accepts phenomenon X but proposes explanation Z instead

Abstract Description: "Provides an alternative account of the facts cited by the first speaker"

Response Pattern 3: Distinguish Cases

Speaker A: Makes claim about category or comparison

Speaker B: Points out relevant differences that undermine the comparison

Abstract Description: "Distinguishes between cases that the first speaker treats as similar"

Response Pattern 4: Accept Premises, Reject Conclusion

Speaker A: Presents evidence E to support conclusion C

Speaker B: Agrees E is true but argues C doesn't follow

Abstract Description: "Accepts the evidence but disputes that it supports the conclusion"

Strategy for Dialogue Questions

Read Speaker A's argument carefully and identify their conclusion and evidence
Identify what Speaker B explicitly says (do they agree/disagree with premises? conclusion?)
Determine the nature of the response (challenge assumption, provide alternative, etc.)
Abstract the relationship between the two arguments
Match to answer choices that describe the response method

Advanced Techniques for Method Questions

Technique 1: The Role-Playing Method

When abstracting arguments, role-play by saying "The author takes [general thing] and uses it to support [general claim]." This forces you into abstract language and helps identify the method.

Technique 2: Pattern Recognition Library

Build a mental library of common patterns by categorizing every method question you practice. After reviewing 30-40 questions, you'll recognize patterns instantly: "That's elimination of alternatives" or "That's applying a principle."

Technique 3: The Substitution Test

Take the answer choice and substitute completely different content into the pattern it describes. If your substituted argument follows the same structure as the original, the answer correctly describes the method.

🧪 Substitution Test Example

Original Argument: "Most economists predict inflation will rise. Therefore, inflation will probably rise."

Answer Choice: "Relies on expert opinion to support a prediction"

Substitution Test: "Most meteorologists predict rain tomorrow. Therefore, it will probably rain tomorrow."

Result: ✓ The substituted argument follows the same pattern, confirming the answer correctly describes the method.

Technique 4: The "What Action Is Taken?" Question

For every argument, ask: "What action does the author take with the evidence?" Possible answers: applies it, contrasts it, generalizes from it, uses it as example, cites it as authority, shows inconsistency in it, etc.

Technique 5: Diagram the Logical Structure

For complex arguments, create a simple diagram showing the flow of reasoning:

Premise 1 + Premise 2 → Intermediate Conclusion → Final Conclusion
[Evidence Type] + [Evidence Type] → [Reasoning Method] → [Claim Type]

This visual representation helps you see the method more clearly than reading alone.

Time Management for Technique Questions

Method of reasoning questions typically require 60-90 seconds once you've mastered the technique. Use this efficient approach:

⏱️ Optimal Time Allocation

0-20 seconds: Read stimulus, identify conclusion and premises
20-35 seconds: Abstract the reasoning method, form prediction
35-60 seconds: Evaluate answer choices, eliminate wrong answers
60-75 seconds: Select best answer, confirm it matches the method

When to Speed Up: If you immediately recognize a common pattern (analogy, counterexample, etc.), you can move through answer choices quickly, confidently eliminating options that don't match.

When to Slow Down: If the argument has complex structure or multiple speakers, invest extra time in understanding the reasoning before looking at answers. Rushing leads to content-focused errors.

How to Practice Method of Reasoning Questions

Effective practice with official LSAC materials builds pattern recognition and abstraction skills. Follow this progressive approach:

Phase 1: Untimed Skill Building (Weeks 1-2)

Complete 10-15 method questions from official LSAT PrepTests without time pressure
For each question, write out the argument's conclusion, premises, and method in abstract terms
Before looking at answer choices, predict the method in your own words
Review all answer choices (correct and incorrect) to understand why they're right or wrong
Create a personal catalog of common methods you encounter

Phase 2: Pattern Recognition (Weeks 3-4)

Group method questions by reasoning type (all analogy questions together, all counterexample questions together, etc.)
Practice recognizing patterns quickly—aim to identify the method within 20 seconds
Begin timing yourself at 90 seconds per question
Focus on abstracting content automatically without conscious effort

Phase 3: Speed and Accuracy (Week 5+)

Complete full Logical Reasoning sections under timed conditions
Aim for 60-75 seconds per method question
Track your accuracy specifically on method questions (target: 85-90%)
Review every method question, even those answered correctly, to reinforce patterns

📊 Progress Metrics

Skill Level	Accuracy Target	Speed Target
Beginner	60-70%	120+ seconds
Intermediate	75-85%	75-90 seconds
Advanced	85-95%	60-75 seconds

Official LSAT Resources for Technique Questions

Use only official materials from the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) for practice. These resources contain authentic LSAT questions with verified answer explanations:

Primary Official Resources

LSAC Official Logical Reasoning Sample Questions - Free sample questions from LSAC including method of reasoning examples
LSAC Official LSAT Prep - Official preparation materials and resources
Official LSAT PrepTests - Published PrepTests with real, previously administered LSAT questions
Khan Academy LSAT Prep - Free official LSAT preparation in partnership with LSAC
Khan Academy: Identify the Technique - Specific lessons and practice for method of reasoning questions

Recommended PrepTest Range

For the most current question styles and difficulty:

PrepTests 62-91: Most recent exams reflecting current LSAT format
SuperPrep I & II: Official books with comprehensive explanations
10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests Series: Collections of authentic exams

⚠️ Important: Official Materials Only

While commercial test prep companies provide valuable strategies and explanations, always practice with official LSAC questions. Unofficial practice questions may not accurately replicate LSAT difficulty, question construction, or answer patterns. Use commercial resources for strategy instruction, but apply those strategies exclusively to official LSAC materials.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many method of reasoning questions appear on the LSAT?

Typically, 3-6 method of reasoning questions appear across both Logical Reasoning sections. While they're not the most common question type, they follow predictable patterns and can become reliable point-scorers with proper preparation and pattern recognition.

What's the difference between method of reasoning and flaw questions?

Method of reasoning questions ask you to describe how an argument works (neutral description of technique), while flaw questions ask you to identify what's wrong with the reasoning (critical evaluation of logical errors). Method questions want objective structural description; flaw questions want identification of mistakes.

Should I evaluate whether the reasoning is good or bad?

No. Method of reasoning questions want purely descriptive answers about what technique is used, not evaluative judgments about quality. Even if the argument is flawed, the correct answer describes the intended method without criticizing it. Save critical analysis for flaw, weaken, and assumption questions.

How abstract should my thinking be?

Very abstract. The correct answer should be describable using generic terms that could apply to many different subjects. Replace all specific content (dolphins, economists, policies) with general categories (animals, experts, proposals). If your description is tied to the specific subject matter, you're not abstract enough.

What if I can't recognize the reasoning pattern?

Focus on the basic relationship: How do the premises connect to the conclusion? Common relationships include: example supporting general claim, analogy between cases, authority supporting conclusion, evidence eliminating alternatives, or counterexample refuting claim. Even if you don't know the technical name, describing this basic relationship helps you evaluate answer choices.

Are dialogue method questions harder than single-speaker questions?

Not necessarily harder, just requiring different analysis. Instead of describing one argument's structure, you're describing how two arguments relate. Focus on what the second speaker does in response to the first: challenge assumption, offer alternative, distinguish cases, etc. The abstraction principle remains the same.

Can an argument use multiple reasoning methods?

Yes, complex arguments often combine methods (e.g., cite expert opinion and then apply a principle). The correct answer will describe the primary or most prominent method, or it will describe the complete reasoning process. If an answer only captures part of what the argument does, it may be incomplete.

How do I practice abstraction if it doesn't come naturally?

Start by literally rewriting arguments with placeholder terms: Replace specific nouns with "thing A," "thing B," specific verbs with "action X," "action Y," and specific outcomes with "result P," "result Q." After doing this with 10-15 arguments, your brain will begin abstracting automatically without the written exercise.

What's the best strategy when stuck between two answer choices?

Apply the substitution test: Create a simple argument with different content that follows the pattern described by each answer choice. Whichever substituted argument better matches the structure of the original argument indicates the correct answer. This concrete comparison often reveals which answer more accurately captures the method.

Test Day Strategy for Technique Questions

✓ Quick Reference Checklist

Recognize the question type from the stem
Identify conclusion and premises quickly
Abstract the content into general terms
Predict the method before reading answers
Eliminate content-focused answers immediately
Match structural description to your prediction
Confirm with substitution test if uncertain
Move forward confidently—these should be quick points

Confidence Builders

Pattern recognition improves dramatically with practice: After 30-40 questions, you'll spot methods instantly
These questions are highly learnable: Unlike some question types requiring logical intuition, method questions reward systematic analysis
Abstraction becomes automatic: What feels unnatural initially becomes second nature
Wrong answers are predictably wrong: Content descriptions and methods-not-used are easily eliminated
High accuracy is achievable: Most prepared test-takers reach 85-90% accuracy on method questions

Key Takeaways

Mastering identify the technique questions in LSAT Logical Reasoning requires shifting your focus from content to structure, from what is said to how it's said. The ability to abstract arguments—replacing specific terms with general categories and describing logical relationships without reference to subject matter—is the foundational skill for success.

Method of reasoning questions reward systematic analysis: identify the conclusion, map the premises, abstract the reasoning pattern, predict the method in general terms, and match to answer choices. Common reasoning patterns (analogy, counterexample, generalization, apply principle) appear repeatedly, making pattern recognition a learnable and highly valuable skill.

The Success Formula

Practice with Official Materials + Pattern Recognition + Abstraction Skill = 85-95% Accuracy

With dedicated practice using official LSAC materials and consistent application of abstraction techniques, method of reasoning questions transform from challenging puzzles into reliable opportunities to demonstrate your analytical skills and earn valuable points toward your target LSAT score.

🎯 Your Action Plan

Access official LSAT PrepTests from LSAC.org
Isolate 40-50 method of reasoning questions for focused practice
Practice abstraction by rewriting arguments in general terms
Build your personal catalog of common reasoning patterns
Track accuracy and speed metrics across practice sessions
Review every question to strengthen pattern recognition
Integrate method questions into full-section timed practice

With systematic practice, pattern recognition, and mastery of abstraction, you'll approach identify the technique questions with confidence and precision on test day, converting these questions into consistent, accurate points on your LSAT score.