Common LSAT Flaws Flashcards
False Dilemma:
The argument treats two or more things as inconsistent when they are actually consistent.
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 13). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Ignoring a True Dilemma:
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 23). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
The argument treats two or more things as consistent, when they are actually inconsistent.
Also known as: Mutual Exclusivity, True Dilemma, True Dichotomy, Kettle Logic
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 23). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Failure to Eliminate Alternatives
The argument neglects to consider other possibilities.
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 30). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Ignoring The Middle Ground
Also known as: Fallacy of the Excluded Middle
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 70). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Name 4 Exclusivity Flaws
False Dilemma
Ignoring a True Dilemma
Failure to Eliminate Alternatives
Ignoring the Middle Ground
3 Causal Flaws:
Treating Correlation As Proof of Causation
Ignoring an Alternate Cause
Treating Correlation As Proof of Causation
The argument concludes a causal relationship exists between two things merely because they are associated.
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 78). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Ignoring an Alternate Cause
The argument fails to consider a reasonable alternative in arguing that a cause and effect relationship exists. This is really just failure to eliminate alternatives in a causal argument.
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 99). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Reversing Cause and Effect
The argument correctly identifies a causal relationship, but incorrectly identifies which is the cause and which is the effect. Also known as: Retrocausality, Reverse Causation, Backward Causation, Mistaking an Effect for Its Cause, Mistaking a Cause for Its Effect
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 115). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
2 Sampling Flaws
Unrepresentative Sample
Biased Sample
Unrepresentative Sample
The argument draws a conclusion about one population on the basis of a survey/experiment on a different/narrower population. Also known as: Faulty Generalization, Hasty Generalization, Overgeneralization, Self-Selection
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 124). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Biased Sample
(Two Groups/Experimental + Control Group) (This is basically a flawed comparison in the sampling context.) Also known as: Cherrypicking, Sampling Bias, Selection Bias
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 130). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Versus Flaws
Part Vs. Whole
Percent vs. Amount
Absolute Vs. Relative
Perception Vs. Reality
Part v. Whole
Also known as: Fallacy of Composition, Fallacy fo Division, Part-to-Whole Flaw, Whole-to-Part Flaw
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 140). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Percent vs. Amount
Absolute Vs. Relative
Perception Vs. Reality
Also known as: Mind Projection Fallacy
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 177). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
3 Inappropriate Appeal Flaws
Appeal To Emotion
Appeal To Popular Opinion
Appeal To Emotion
The argument supports a factual conclusion with emotional considerations. Also known as: Argumentum Ad Passiones, Argument From Passion, Appeal to Fear, Argumentum Ad Terrorem, Misleading Vividness
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 185). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Appeal to Popular Opinion
The argument takes the fact that many people believe something as proof that thing is true. Also known as: Argumentum Ad Populum
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 191). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Appeal To Inappropriate Authority
The argument relies upon an authority without relevant expertise to support its conclusion. Also known as: Arumentum Ad Verecundiam, Courtier’s Reply
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 197). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
2 Equivocation Flaws
Ambiguous Word Usage
Equivocation
Ambiguous Word Usage
The argument uses one word in two unrelated senses.
Also known as: Vague Word Usage, Vagueness, Shift in Meaning, Definitional Retreat, Persuasive Definition
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 208). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Equivocation
The argument does not distinguish between two things/concepts that are different.
Also known as: Conflation, Motte-and-bailey Fallacy
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 225). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
2 Comparison/Analogy Flaws
Ignoring a Relevant Difference
Ignoring a Relevant Similarity
Ignoring a Relevant Difference
The argument ignores a relevant difference when arguing things are similar. Also known as: Incomplete Comparison, Inconsistent Comparison, False Analogy
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 246). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Ignoring a Relevant Similarity
The argument ignores a relevant similarity when arguing things are different. Also known as: Incomplete Comparison, Inconsistent Comparison, False Analogy
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 259). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
2 Temporal Flaws
Shift In Time Period
The Gambler’s Fallacy
Shift In Time Period
The argument uses premises about one time period (past/present/future) in order to support a conclusion about a different time period (past/present/future). Also known as: Temporal Fallacy
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 268). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
The Gambler’s Fallacy
The argument assumes that the probability an event will happen increases with each failed attempt.
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 274). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
3 Miscellaneous Flaws
Sufficient/Necessary
Circular Reasoning
Weak Premise
Sufficient/Necessary Flaws
The argument attempts to take the contrapositive of a principle but fails either to reverse or to negate terms.
Also known as: Affirming the Consequent, Converse Error, Fallacy of the Converse, Denying the Antecedent, Fallacy of the Inverse, Inverse Fallacy, Confusion of Necessity and Sufficiency
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 282). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 282). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Circular Reasoning
The argument uses a premise that is logically identical to a conclusion. Also known as: Circular Logic, Circulus In Probando, Begging the Question
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 299). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Weak Premise
The conclusion is logically stronger than the premise.
Also known as: Inductive Fallacy, Modality Flaw
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 308). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
5 Disputation Flaws
Attacking the Person
Hypocrisy
Red Herring
Straw Man
Absence of Evidence
Outlier
Attacking the Person
Also known as: Ad Hominem, Appeal to Motive.
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 318). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Hypocrisy
Also known as: Tu Quoque, Inconsistent Behavior
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 338). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Red Herring
The argument brings up a different, irrelevant issue from the one presented
Also known as: Irrelevant Distraction
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 344). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Straw Man
The argument mischaracterizes the position being disputed in order to make that position easier to refute. Also known as: Weak Man Fallacy
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 358). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Absence of Evidence
The argument treats failure to prove a claim as proof the claim is false, or the argument treats failure to disprove a claim as proof the claim is true.
Also known as: Argument From Ignorance
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 369). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Outlier
The argument attempts to rebut a probabilistic argument with a non-conforming anecdote. Also known as: Argument by Anecdote
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 381). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Partial Solutions Flaws
Treating a Partial Solution as No Solution
Treating a Partial Solution as a Complete Solution
Treating a Partial Solution as No Solution
Also known as: Nirvana Fallacy, Perfect Solution Fallacy
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 390). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
3 Common Wrong Answers
Mischaracterizes The Stimulus
Failure to Define/Cite/Specify
Irrelevant to the Conclusion
Mischaracterizes The Stimulus:
(Common Wrong Answer)
Any answer choice that says something happened in the stimulus when it didn’t, or that something didn’t happen in the stimulus when it did, is automatically wrong. This is a good way to get rid of answers before even considering whether the answer actually describes a flaw, which it might not.
Failure to Define/Cite/Specify:
(Common Wrong Answer)
Lots of wrong answers quibble about how good a premise is. Say, for instance, an argument in the stimulus cites a statistical study supporting its conclusion. In other words, the study is a premise. A wrong answer might say something like, “Fails to cite the source of the statistics it relies upon.” These answers are almost always wrong because they get argumentation wrong: An argument doesn’t have to support its premises, just the conclusion. So, it’s just not a flaw to fail to support the premise.
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 403). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
Irrelevant to the Conclusion
(Common Wrong Answer)
A lot of times a flaw answer choice will look good until you consider what is actually being argued about. If the conclusion is about, for instance, human emotion, an answer that is irrelevant to that conclusion might say something like, “Fails to take into account the emotions of non-human animals.” Well, if we aren’t arguing about them, they’re irrelevant.
LSAT Prep, LSATMax; Ebadolahi, Mehran; Frankel, Branden; Woehr, Jelena; Shinners, Matt. 33 Common LSAT Flaws (p. 403). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
11 Types of Flaws
Exclusivity Flaws (4)
Causal Flaws (3)
Sampling Flaws (2)
Versus Flaws (4)
Inappropriate Appeal Flaws (3)
Equivocation Flaws (2)
Comparison/Analogy Flaws (2)
Temporal Flaws (2)
Disputation Flaws (6)
Partial Solutions Flaws (2)
Miscellaneous Flaws (3)
