What is a key strategy to tackle apparent contradiction questions on the LSAT?

When dealing with apparent contradiction questions on the LSAT, one of the most effective strategies is to analyze statements for underlying assumptions. This method allows you to dig deeper into the logical structure of the argument and identify premises that might not be explicitly stated but are necessary for the argument to hold together without contradiction.

In many cases, contradictions arise because one or both statements make assumptions that aren't supported by the evidence or other premises presented. By uncovering these hidden assumptions, you can often find a way to reconcile the conflicting ideas or at least understand how they may be compatible or why they have been presented that way. This analytical approach is central to critical reasoning and will enable you to approach these types of questions with greater clarity and insight.

Other strategies, such as identifying emotional appeals or focusing solely on conclusions, are less effective because they do not address the actual reasoning flaws that are causing the contradiction. Resolving a contradiction typically requires a thorough exploration of the logical relationships at play, which is best achieved through examining underlying assumptions.