Method of Reasoning asks you to name the argumentative technique the passage (or a specific argument within it) uses — not what is argued, not the sequence of moves, but the specific type of reasoning employed. It's the RC cousin of Logical Reasoning's Method of Reasoning question type, but vanishingly rare on the Reading Comprehension section — 1 question across 2,479 in the corpus. When it does appear, it's on a comparative passage and asks what technique both authors share.
Method of Reasoning asks you to name the argumentative technique the author (or a specific argument within the passage) uses to advance the case. Not the content — what the author claims — and not the sequence — how the argument is laid out paragraph by paragraph. The technique: is the author arguing by analogy, citing counterexamples, correcting alleged misunderstandings, appealing to authority, distinguishing cases?
The skill is metacognitive: stepping outside the argument's content and describing the kind of reasoning happening. It's the same skill tested more aggressively in Logical Reasoning's Method of Reasoning questions — but applied to one argument embedded in a longer passage rather than to a tight, standalone argument.
In practice, RC Method of Reasoning is so rare that most prep students will never see one. It's included in question-type taxonomies mainly to note the boundary between Method, Organization of Passage, and Primary Purpose — three closely related ways of describing what an argument does.
Before you can identify a method, you need a working list of argumentative techniques. LSAT answer choices treat these at a high level of abstraction, so the same technique might apply across many unrelated topics.
Correcting misunderstandings — identifying and refuting common misconceptions. Arguing by analogy — drawing a parallel case to make a point. Appealing to authority — citing expert opinion in support. Reductio ad absurdum — showing that a position leads to an absurd conclusion. Citing counterexamples — presenting cases that contradict a generalization. Distinguishing cases — showing that two seemingly similar things are relevantly different. Historical precedent — using past events to support predictions or evaluations. Conceptual analysis — clarifying the meaning of key terms to resolve a dispute.
The correct answer will typically name one of these techniques (or a close paraphrase) and apply it to what the passage actually does. Wrong answers name other plausible techniques — ones the passage doesn't use.
Source: PT72, Q23 (Difficulty 4). "Both passages seek to advance their arguments by means of which one of the following?"
The five answer choices: (A) Accusing opponents of shifting their ground. (B) Citing specific historical developments as evidence. (C) Arguing on the basis of an analogy. (D) Employing rhetorical questions. (E) Correcting alleged misunderstandings.
Correct answer: (E) "Correcting alleged misunderstandings." Both passages advance their arguments primarily by identifying misconceptions and pushing back against them — the technique holds across both passages even though the topics differ. The choices work at a technique level abstract enough to apply to any content.
If you ever see one of these in practice, the approach is straightforward.
Step 1 — Identify the technique abstractly. Step away from content. What kind of argumentative move is the passage making? Is it pushing back against a common misconception? Drawing a parallel? Citing examples? Trying to settle a definitional dispute? Name the move in one phrase.
Step 2 — For comparative passages, check both passages. The question's phrasing — "both passages advance their arguments by means of" — means the answer has to be a technique that applies to each passage. A technique that shows up only in one passage is wrong, no matter how clearly that passage uses it.
Step 3 — Match to the abstract choice. Answer choices are high-abstraction technique labels. The correct one captures the move at the level the choice is phrased. Eliminate choices that name techniques the passage doesn't use — even legitimate argumentative techniques can be decoys if the passage doesn't actually employ them.
The single example's answer choices average 6.2 words — very short, because they name abstract techniques rather than describe specific content. Each choice is a technique label at a level of abstraction that could apply to any topic ("citing specific historical developments as evidence," "correcting alleged misunderstandings"). The correct answer names a technique the passage actually uses; wrong answers name techniques it doesn't.
Because the corpus has only one example, trap patterns have to be generalized from adjacent question types. But the decoys in PT72 Q23 are representative.
Surface similarity without technique. Choice (B), "citing specific historical developments as evidence," is wrong because while the passages contain historical content, the primary method isn't historical citation. The trap rewards test-takers who see historical material and assume it must be the technique.
Plausible-sounding technique the passage doesn't use. Choices (A) "accusing opponents of shifting their ground" and (D) "employing rhetorical questions" are legitimate argumentative techniques that the passages don't actually employ. They sound right because they're the sort of thing passages could do — just not what these passages do.
Technique applies to only one passage. Especially in the comparative context, a choice can correctly describe a technique in one passage but not both — making it wrong for a question asking about shared method.
With only 1 question across 2,479 in the corpus, Method of Reasoning is the rarest RC question type alongside Point of Disagreement. Two factors explain the scarcity.
Overlap with Organization of Passage. Most "how does the author argue?" questions are classified under Organization of Passage, which describes structure and sequence rather than abstract technique. The line between "the passage proceeds by presenting a theory and then challenging it" (Organization) and "the passage argues by correcting alleged misunderstandings" (Method) is thin — and LSAC has clearly preferred the Organization framing.
The format works better in LR. Method of Reasoning is natural for short, standalone arguments — which is precisely what Logical Reasoning stimuli are. In a long RC passage, multiple methods often coexist within the same argument, making it harder to pin the passage to a single technique. The structure is simply a better fit for Logical Reasoning.
This type is effectively a labeling outlier — a historical classification choice rather than a consistently distinct category. Plan your prep accordingly: know the concept exists; don't spend serious time drilling it.
vs. LR Method of Reasoning. The crucial structural difference. LR Method operates on a short, standalone argument of a few sentences — the entire stimulus is one argumentative move. RC Method operates on one argument embedded in a much longer passage, where multiple methods may be in play and the question picks out the dominant one. Same skill, very different scale.
vs. Organization of Passage. Organization describes the sequence or structure ("introduces a theory, then challenges it"). Method describes the technique ("correcting alleged misunderstandings," "arguing by analogy"). Organization is about layout; Method is about argumentative type.
vs. Primary Purpose. Purpose describes the goal ("to argue that X"). Method describes the means ("by correcting misunderstandings"). Purpose is the end; Method is the how.
vs. Main Point. Main Point describes what is argued. Method describes how it is argued. Main Point is about content and claim; Method is about technique.
With only one example in the corpus, there's exactly one confirmed stem pattern — and the single example is 13 words long, asking about a technique shared by both passages in a comparative pair.