Agree/Disagree

Free LSAT Course > Logical Reasoning > Parallelism > Agree/Disagree

These questions feature arguments from two speakers. Either they agree (they are parallel) or they disagree (they are not parallel).

CHALLENGE: Analyze an Agreement / Disagreement

Point questions are focused on finding a conflict between two speakers who agree or disagree.

James and Marcus agree that . . .
Which of the following provides the most support for holding that they disagree about whether…
The dialogue provides the most support that the speakers agree that.

How to solve

Read both arguments from the speakers and identify their premises and conclusions.
Identify any and all disagreements between the two arguments.
Common correct answers might include their takes on a cause-and-effect argument.
They may agree or disagree on the validity of a premise or evidence (not just conclusions). So, these Logical Reasoning questions have the validity of evidence as fair game.
Avoid trap choices: something not relevant to the dispute.

Intro (0:10) | Ex.1 (1:25) | Ex.2 (5:00) | Ex.3 (9:58) | Trap Choices (14:05)
LSAT Lab offers six classes a week. Register for a free demo class.

Next LSAT: January 13th

Free Weekly LSATLab Seminars

Site-sponsor LSAT Lab offers six online seminars a week on specific LSAT question types.

Free "Starter" Course

Take a free official LSAT

25+ hours of LSAT instructional videos

Free class demo: Join one of six weekly classes focusing on a single LSAT question topic. Instructor Matt Sherman scored a 176 and has spent 17 years teaching the LSAT and developing curricula for elite LSAT prep companies.

LSATLab Demo / Free LSAT

LSATLab Demo: More Upcoming Seminars

{"first_video":"BETyptZvpps","testData":[{"videoId":"BETyptZvpps","videoLoopStart":"1.5","videoLoopEnd":"2.5","VideoEnd":"397","videoCustomization":"","correct":"D","explanation":"0:00 - This question asks the reader to infer a dispute. The correct answer will be a claim that one can reasonably infer the two speakers would disagree about. | \n0:35 - Read the stimulus. Focus on understanding the main conclusion and evidence of each speaker`s argument. | \n1:30 - Generally, don`t make a strong prediction for questions like these because there could be any number of correct answers. | \n1:47 - Evaluate each choice. First, determine what the first speaker`s opinion would be about the choice`s claim. | \n2:00 - Make a question to ask each speaker. For example, for (A), ask: <q>Huang, do you think the best way to reduce violent crime is to address the root cause of violence?<\/q> | \n2:10 - Huang`s answer would be <q>Yes,<\/q> <q>No,<\/q> or <q>I never addressed this.<\/q> For (A), Huang never addressed this claim. | \n2:42 - If either speaker didn`t address the choice`s claim, eliminate the choice and move on. | \n3:25 - Huang also never addressed the claim in (B), so eliminate it. | \n3:40 - Huang would disagree with (C), but Suarez didn`t address the claim, so eliminate choice (C). | \n4:35 - Huang would disagree with (D) because Huang is arguing that mandatory sentences don`t work. Suarez, on the other hand, would agree. (D) is the correct answer. | \n5:40 - (E) doesn`t work because Huang never addressed the claim. | \n5:55 - Recap.","explanationBreaks":"0:00 - This question asks the reader to infer a dispute. The correct answer will be a claim that one can reasonably infer the two speakers would disagree about. \n0:35 - Read the stimulus. Focus on understanding the main conclusion and evidence of each speaker`s argument. \n1:30 - Generally, don`t make a strong prediction for questions like these because there could be any number of correct answers. \n1:47 - Evaluate each choice. First, determine what the first speaker`s opinion would be about the choice`s claim. \n2:00 - Make a question to ask each speaker. For example, for (A), ask: <q>Huang, do you think the best way to reduce violent crime is to address the root cause of violence?<\/q> \n2:10 - Huang`s answer would be <q>Yes,<\/q> <q>No,<\/q> or <q>I never addressed this.<\/q> For (A), Huang never addressed this claim. \n2:42 - If either speaker didn`t address the choice`s claim, eliminate the choice and move on. \n3:25 - Huang also never addressed the claim in (B), so eliminate it. \n3:40 - Huang would disagree with (C), but Suarez didn`t address the claim, so eliminate choice (C). \n4:35 - Huang would disagree with (D) because Huang is arguing that mandatory sentences don`t work. Suarez, on the other hand, would agree. (D) is the correct answer. \n5:40 - (E) doesn`t work because Huang never addressed the claim. \n5:55 - Recap.","clockPosition":"TR","imageThumb":"https:\/\/www.lsat-center.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/yt_thumbs\/44_BETyptZvpps.jpg","categoryId":"14","id":"44"}]}