Flaws Flashcards
Absence of Evidence
Lack of evidence can’t prove something
Typical answer phrasing: “rejects a position on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been made for it”
Ad Hominem
Attacking the character, bias, behavior, etc. of the source to deny a claim.
Typical answer phrasing: “attacks the source of the claim rather than the claim itself”
Correlation to Causation (Causal)
Coincidence or correlation does not mean one causes the other. They may just be happening at the same time.
Typical answer phrasing: “confuses causation for mere correlation”
Failure to Consider Alternate Causes (Causal)
The argument fails to consider other factors that may cause the phenomena to occur.
Typical answer phrasing: “fails to address a highly plausible alternative explanation for all instances of the observed phenomenon”
Reverses Cause and Effect (Causal)
The flaw confuses or fails to support that phenomena A causes phenomena B, when phenomena B could plausibly cause phenomena A.
Typical answer phrasing: “the argument confuses the effect of an action with its cause”
Circular Reasoning
When the author’s conclusion simply restates one or more of the premises.
“You should listen to your LSAT instructor because their advice is worth listening to”
Typical answer phrasing: “presumes the truth of the claim that it is trying to establish”
Comparison Error (Faulty Analogy)
Because two things have an attribute in common, doesn’t necessarily mean they have another attribute in common. Comparisons can be used in valid arguments, but it depends on how appropriate the analogy is.
Typical answer phrasing: “relies on a faulty analogy”
Part to Whole (Composition Error)
What is true about an individual part is not necessarily true about the whole. An author assumes that if a part has a property, then the entire group has the property. Examples: individual people in a group, components within something (i.e. computer), or averages.
Typical answer phrasing: “illicitly assumes that because one member of a group has a characteristic, that the group as a whole must have that characteristic as well”
Whole to Part (Composition Error)
What’s true about the whole doesn’t need to be true about its parts. An author assumes that if a whole has a property, then all, most or some parts have the property as well. Pay attention to concepts like “whole group”, something with component parts (i.e. computer), or averages.
Typical answer phrasing: “infers that a part has a certain quality merely on the grounds that the whole to which it belongs has that quality”
Inverse Conditional Flaw
It is a fallacy to assume if a sufficient condition doesn’t occur then the necessary condition also doesn’t occur.
A–>B
NOT A
Therefore, NOT B [WRONG]
Typical answer phrasing: “treats a condition that is sufficient as if this condition is necessary”
Converse Conditional Flaw
It is a fallacy to assume that if a necessary occurs then the sufficient must also occur.
A –> B
B
Therefore, A [WRONG]
Typical answer phrasing: “treats a condition that is necessary as if this condition were sufficient”
Equivocation Concept
When author takes two distinct ideas (that seem to have some relationship with each other) and try to pass them off as the same idea. This occurs when a new idea pops up in the conclusion, an idea with a meaningful difference with something spoken about in a premise.
Typical answer phrasing: “illicitly presumes that two distinct concepts are interchangeable”
Equivocation Key Word
Argument uses the same word to refer to two different meanings (definitions) of a concept.
Typical answer phrasing: “trades on the ambiguity of a particular term”
Exclusivity
The argument lists options for phenomena and assumes those are the only options to explain the occurrence. The author assumes that the options they considered are an “exhaustive list” of explanations.
Typical answer phrasing: “takes for granted [assumes] that there are only two possible alternatives”
Modality (Logical Force)
Arguments can’t draw conclusions that are stronger in logical force than the premises given. In this flaw, the author will either: 1) try to draw a conclusion (must be true) that has stronger modality than the premises (could be true), OR 2) try to draw a conclusion that has stronger qualification (most or all) than the premises (some times). Also, the author could assert certainty from premises that are only possibilities or probabilities.
Typical answer phrasing: “takes evidence showing merely that is conclusion could be true to constitute evidence showing that the conclusion is in fact true”
