“Since” is often used in LSAT logical reasoning questions and reading comprehension passages. It usually is involved in a very specific sentence construction and can often help you identify the conclusion or sub-conclusion of the argument. And as you should know, identifying the conclusion is one of the most important steps in understanding and answering LSAT questions, particularly in the logical reasoning and reading comprehension sections.
Here we take a look at how since is used on the LSAT and how you can use it to better understand arguments in LSAT questions.
We often see “since” used in one of the following constructions. They are basically the same but reversed:
- “Conclusion”, since “premise.”
- Since, “premise”, “conclusion.”
So “since” is often part of a two part sentence. One part being your conclusion or sub-conclusion and the other part being a premise supporting that conclusion.
Let’s look at an actual LSAT question from the June 2007 LSAT exam:
Novel X and Novel Y are both semiautobiographical
novels and contain many very similar themes and
situations, which might lead one to suspect plagiarism
on the part of one of the authors. However, it is more
likely that the similarity of themes and situations in the
two novels is merely coincidental, since both authors are
from very similar backgrounds and have led similar
lives.
Which one of the following most accurately expresses
the conclusion drawn in the argument?
(full question and answers below)
You can see where since is used in the last sentence.
“However, it is more likely that the similarity of themes and situations in the two novels is merely coincidental, since both authors are from very similar backgrounds and have led similar lives.”
Here we have our conclusion as the first part of the sentence, followed by SINCE and then a premise which supports the conclusion directly.
Understanding this construction can help you break down the components of an argument faster.
BEWARE though, merely because we have found “a conclusion” does not necessarily mean it is “the main conclusion” of the argument. In this case it is but in other questions this conclusion may go on to support a further conclusion. The key is to check whether this conclusion goes on to support some further part of the argument (making this a sub-conclusion) or if the rest of the argument supports this conclusion (making it the main one).
More help with breaking down arguments in our LSAT Prep Course online.
The full questions and answers for the question above are here:
Novel X and Novel Y are both semiautobiographical
novels and contain many very similar themes and
situations, which might lead one to suspect plagiarism
on the part of one of the authors. However, it is more
likely that the similarity of themes and situations in the
two novels is merely coincidental, since both authors are
from very similar backgrounds and have led similar
lives.
Which one of the following most accurately expresses
the conclusion drawn in the argument?
(A) Novel X and Novel Y are both
semiautobiographical novels, and the two
novels contain many very similar themes and
situations.
(B) The fact that Novel X and Novel Y are both
semiautobiographical novels and contain many
very similar themes and situations might lead
one to suspect plagiarism on the part of one of
the authors.
(C) The author of Novel X and the author of
Novel Y are from very similar backgrounds
and have led very similar lives.
(D) It is less likely that one of the authors of
Novel X or Novel Y is guilty of plagiarism
than that the similarity of themes and
situations in the two novels is merely
coincidental.
(E) If the authors of Novel X and Novel Y are from
very similar backgrounds and have led similar
lives, suspicions that either of the authors
plagiarized are very likely to be unwarranted.
Correct answer: (D) This simply restates the conclusion expressed before “since” in our last sentence.
Greg Smith
Greg took the LSAT in 2002 receiving a high score that got him into the law school of his choice. This led him to teach LSAT classes while attending law school at the University of British Columbia and continued teaching while practicing law with top international law firms Borden Ladner Gervais LLP and later Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP, in the area of Securities and Capital Markets. Read more
