Flaws

Question 1

Explain the issue behind the following flaw;

Logical Force

Answer 1

conclusion is stronger than the premises (evidence)
-author asserts possibility, or even probablity in the premises and then attempts to draw a conclusion that asserts certainty.

conclusion’s modality and/or quantification > premise’s modality and/or quantification.

• author asserts conclusion that has a stronger quantification.
  ex: premise is about “some” & conclusion is about “most” or “all”

Question 2

Explain the issue behind the following flaw;

Converse/Inverse

Answer 2

missusing conditional statements in some way, usually confusing sufficient/necessary
*2 ways: *
1. converse: a -> b; b is true, so a is true (infers something from the presence of the necessary condition.)
2. inverse: /a/ -> /b; a is false, so b is false

FLAG: conditional premise(s)

Question 3

What are the identification factors to the following flaw;

Converse/Inverse

Answer 3

stimulus uses conditional language
**IMPORTANT: ** this answer is a common trap only select if you’ve actually seen diagraming language int he stimulus and its being used incorrectly.

Question 4

Explain the issue behind the following flaw;

Inverse

Answer 4

assumes sufficient condition presented is the only sufficient condition that leads to the necessary condition.

flawed b/c other sufficient conditions can trigger the the same necessary condition

AC: “there might be other sufficient conditions”

Question 5

Explain the issue behind the following flaw;

Converse

Answer 5

issue: taking the result as if it triggers something but, it doesn’t trigger anything.

OG: A-> B
Con: B-> A

this is commiting you to MORE than what the OG statement did.

Question 6

Explain the issue behind the following flaw;

Comparison

Answer 6

issue: comparing 2 things to one another without showingand/or establishing that they are comparable.

ID:
-any sort of comparison being made
- two different subjects but the same predicate/description being used for both

• ex: Joel & Allen are both basketball players. Joel is tall, so Allen must be tall aswell.

note: It’s EXTREMELY hard to make a valid comparison on the LSAT, So if you see comparative language, that’s probably what is wrong.

Question 7

Explain the issue behind the following flaw;

Ad Hominem

Answer 7

“to the person” / “to the body”
issue: attacks the character, motive, background of the person making the argument

bad people can make good arguments b/c the merits are NOT influenced by a person’s character. You have to attack the merrits of the argument specifically the CONNECTION between the premsies and conclusion. the character, motives, background etc. is irrelevant.

CA: “attacking the person/source, instead of attacking the claim”

Question 8

Explain the issue behind the following flaw;

Sampling

Answer 8

issue: polls,surveys, studies, research, etc.. are being used to support conclusions but fail to avoid one/some of the following:
-representatives in the survey don’t represent the group ref in the conclusion (views, age etc.)
- check if sample group has some characteristic that would make them an unrepresentative group auth is drawing a conclusion about.
- survey reps have a reason to lie or be biased
- small sample: generally if you can counton one hand, it’s too small

Question 9

Explain the issue behind the following flaw;

Circular

Answer 9

issue: argument is using premise that itself is relying on the conclusion to be true. usually makes use of a subsidiary conclusion along the way.

common language: “ Assumes the very thing it sets out to prove”

note: very rare! commonly used as a tempting wrong answer BUT of course can happen.

Question 10

Explain the issue behind the following flaw

Temporal

Answer 10

issue: assumes what’s true/false in one time period is also true/false in another.

ID: changes in verb tense (past to future, present to future, present to past)
seeing equivocations about different cases/time periods

Question 11

Explain the issue behind the following flaw;

Correlation =/= Causation

Answer 11

correlation =/= causation

assumes b/c 2 things are happening in close proximity /OR that one thing follows another, one causes another

ID: causal lang, especially in conclusion
“caused, brings about, results in, leads to, because”

3 ways to see it.
i. assuming causality when it could be a coincidence.
ii. neglecting a 3rd cause/ something that’s causing both things.
iii. ignoring reversed causality/mistakes an effect for a cause
** MUST have correlation in the premise(s) & a causal conclusion!**

Question 12

Explain the issue behind the following flaw;

Composition

Answer 12

2 ways we can see it:
i. assumes a whole (coherent whole)/ group MUST have an attribute because an individual member does.
ii. assumes some member has an attribute becuase the whole group does.

Note: needs to be a coherent whole, not just all the individual.

ID:
mentioning wholes & parts, groups and members
- what’s true about the parts =/= true about the whole
- what’s true about the whole=/= true about the parts

Question 13

Explain the issue behind the following flaw;

Percentage v. Amount

Answer 13

issue: assuming a larger percentage = a larger amount w/o confirming that the baselines are comparable to one another.

ID: premise deals with one of percentage/amount and the conclusion deals with the other

Question 14

Explain the issue behind the following flaw;

Equivocation

Answer 14

issue: treats two things as identical when they are not.
ID:
i. presented new info in conclusion NOT mentioned in the premise ( judgemental language: responsible, equivocating facts with judgement)
ii. same subject in both premise & conclusion but with different predicates/descriptions attached to them.
Two (2) ways we can see:
i. similar yet distinct concepts are used interchangeably.
ii. using single word or phrase two (2) different ways.

Question 15

Explain the issue behind the following flaw;

Proportionality

Answer 15

issue: stimulus assumes there’s a direct relationship between two (2) things (if one goes down, the other will also go down by the same amt) but we DONT get evidence to support that.

Question 16

Explain the issue behind the following flaw;

Exclusivity

Answer 16

issue: failing to consider other options, conclusion is ruling out other possibilitis when evidence hasn’t done so. Assuming some options are exclusive wen they may not be, vice versa.
Three (3) ways it can show up as:
i. exhaustive list: assuming that the options you have considered are the only options.

ii. mutually exclusive: assuming two (2) things can work together when they cant or assuming two (2) things can’t work together when they can. ** things that have characteristics individually doesn’t mean they will retain them when combined with something else or eachother.

iii. extremes: ignoring a middle ground.

clues: very strong conclusion (MUST, HAVE TO , ONLY )
ask: are these premises enough to really GUARANTEE this is the ONLY choice. “iron clad words”

Question 17

Explain the issue behind the following flaw;

Perception v. Reality

Answer 17

issue: argument is assuing that someone’s incomplete knowldege about something (or their beliefs and/or opinions about something) are the same as what’s actually true about that thing.

No opinion can prove something subjective is true or false. Just because someone says something doesn’t mean it’s true. Flawed to rely on beliefs or opinions of people when those are irrelevant to the truth at hand.

ID: premises will that language refering to what people say, believe, think.

Ask: are perceptions being taken as the absolute truth of the matter?

Question 18

Explain the issue behind the following flaw;

Observed behavior

Answer 18

issue: take an observed behavior & try to provide an explaination for it. Most often you’ll see that a possible flaw is that you could provode an alternate explaination for the same behavior.

Flavor of exclusivity

Question 19

Explain the issue behind the following flaw

Inconcistent

Answer 19

Issue: premises are inconsitent with the conclusion

Question 20

Explain the issue behind the following flaw;

Judgement

Answer 20

issue: in order to make a valid judgement type conclusion it would be needing a pretty lengthy pros and cons analysis BUT in LSAT almost always one sideis chosen & taken. The other side isn’t talked about.

Question 21

Explain the issue behind the following flaw;

2 person flaw

Answer 21

issue: 80% of the problem isn’t inherent to the person in question. The reason for the flaw is because the person responding is not understanding the argument.

Ask: where is the disconnect

Question 22

What are the three (3) ways we can see this flaw;

Perception v. Reality

Answer 22

i. assumes because someone believes it, it must be true (equivocating)
ii. assumes because something is the earliest we know about it, it must be the earliest that exists.
iii. assumes that because something is true that someone must belive it.

ID: Belief language
“ thinks, believes, seems, knows” thoughts and language of what actually is the case.

Question 23

Explain the issue behind the following flaw:

Relative v. Absolute

Answer 23

issue: having an absolute claim doesn’t give you any relative info/insight.

If you have an absolute claim you don’t know how it compares to something else

relative: comparative statement of how two (2) things relate to eachother

** Be Alert: All you know is how they compare NOT how they are and vice versa.**

Question 24

Explain the issue behind the following flaw:

Incomplete Comparison

Answer 24

issue: knowing a few negatives about ONE option is not enough by itself to conclude it’s worse than its alternative.

ID: comparative conlcusion or a judgy conclusion “should” “ought”

strengthen: No other relevant differences
weaken: ID other relevant differences
necessary: No other relevant differences

Question 25

# Explain the issue behind the following flaw: Absence of Evidence

Answer 25

issue: the lack of evidence doesn't prove stuff one way or another -Just because we can't prove something false, doesn't mean it's true. - Just because you can't prove something doesn't exist, does not prove that it does exist. We just dont know whether it exists or not.

Question 26

# Explain the issue behind the following flaw: Impeded Fallacy

Answer 26

issue: just because something is getting better (advancing) doesn't mean it hasn't been impeded (delayed). just because something is getting better/worse doesn't mean other things aren't affecting it. ex: something could of been better if "x" was not in the way. ex: something could of been worse if "x" wasn't in the way

Question 27

# What are the four (4) ways to spot the following fallacy; Exclusivity

Answer 27

i. because an option works/ is acceptable it's the ONLY option like that. ID: Necessary language in the conclusion (must, needs, only, requires, only if) ii. two things can't be true together when they COULD be. (neglects possibilty of both) ID: solely/entirely (mutually exclusive) iii. Two things could be true together when they might NOT be. ID: conclusion about doing both @ same time. iiii. Two (2) extremes failing to consider middle ground.

Question 28

Explain the issue behind a small sample set being used.

Answer 28

The argument is flawed because a general conclusion is being made using evidence from a limited portion of whatever group or system being discussed. limited portion of evidence -> general consensus.

Question 29

# Explain the issue behind the following flaw: Sampling

Answer 29

issue: argument relies on a sample/survey/poll/ study that has a methodological error in it, or an argument draws improper conclusion from study. ID: survey/sample/poll/experiment --The more you know about the poll/survey, the more likely that's the flaw. ---The less you knw about the poll/survey, the less likely that's the issue. Five (5) ways to see it: i. sample doesn't represent what conclusion is about. ii. experiment does not use a control group. iii. sample is self-selecting (NOT random) iiii.based on a biased question. iv. small sample (rare).

Question 30

# Explain the issue behind the following flaw: Circular Reasoning

Answer 30

issue: the conclusion is identical to the premise. Remember: purpose of an argument is to inform and/or persuade this does neither. CA: " it presupposes (whenever shows up it's rarely true b/c circular reasoning is rare. make sure to id that premise & conclusion are saying the same thing.) what it seeks to establish (conclusion).

Question 31

# Explain the issue behind the following flaw: Temporal

Answer 31

issue: assumes that the future must mirror either the present or the past or assumes that one time period affects the other. -- ignoring distinction btwn past & future. just b/c things happened one way in the past doesn't mean they will/won't turn out the same way in the future. ID: Look for changes in verb tense btwn premises and conclusion (time talk) ((p: had) ->(c: will)) look for premises about past patterns. esp. when past patterns make predictions about present or future.

Question 32

# Explain the issue behind the following flaw: Composition

Answer 32

issue: what's true about the parts doesn't have to be true about the whole. what's true about the whole doesn't have to be true about the parts. i. whole-to-part: a premise about the "whole" does NOT prove something is true about the individual that makes part of the whole. ii. part-to-whole: you can't conclude something about a whole just becuase you know something about one of its parts. ID: seeing same characteristic on BOTH premise & conclusion ** most common in PF questions**

Question 33

# Explain the issue behind the following flaw: Percentage v. Amount

Answer 33

issue: -uses % to justify conclusions about definite amounts -uses amts to justify a conclusion abt %. You are ignoring the TOTAL size of the group being talked about. p: must mention % to validly conclude %'s p: must mention anmts to validly conclude amts %:proportions, likeliehood, chances, market share.

Question 34

# Explain the issue behind the following flaw: Comparison/Analogy

Answer 34

issue: validity depends on how approporiate the analogy is. If there are important relevant differences between the two things being compared then it'll NOT be a persuasive argument. Bad comparison

Question 35

# Explain the issue behind the following flaw: Ad Hominem

Answer 35

issue: Attacks the character of someone making an argument rather than addresssing the merits of the argument itself.

Question 36

# what are some ways to identify the following flaw: Equivocation

Answer 36

i. same word being used to refer to two (2) seperate concepts or just equates the two (2) concepts. ii. taking two (2) different ideas & assuming they're the same idea. seperate concept #1 =/= seperate concept #2 ex: consistent =/= accurate iii. same term but different meanings. ID: new ideas in conclusion (not in premises) ask yourself if the meaning is the same & if there's a meaningful difference between the two. If there is then it's an equivocation.

Question 37

# What are the three (3) ways the following flaw shows up? Absence of Evidence

Answer 37

i. assumes false b/c there's no good evidence it's true. ii. assumes true b/c there's no good evidence it's false. iii. evidence is wrong so conclusion must be wrong (most common) ID: positive language in the premise w/ negative langugae in conclusion or vice versa about argument being wrong/ false. note: Be careful of committing this flaw in ~mbt/mbt (very common wrong answer)

Question 38

What are the four (4) common flaw patterns in strengthen & weaken questions?

Answer 38

1. Linking (equivocation): New idea in the conclusion not mentioned in the stimulus. * almost always brand new judgement in the conclusion. need a rule that links evidence to new term/judgement. 2. Restrictive (exclusivity): Conclusion has strong/exclusive language 3. Causal (correlation=/= causation): drawing a connection between two (2) things & claiming that since they happened in certain order the 1st must be a cause of the 2nd. 4. Comparison (incomplete comparison): Incomplete; overlooking differences.

Question 39

What is the plan of attack for flaw patterns showing up in strengthen & weaken questions?

Answer 39

regardless of the flaw pattern.. weaken: yes but, strengthen: yes and

Question 40

What are the identification factors to look out for, for composition fallacy?

Answer 40

-pay attention to mentions of "whole"especially in premise(s) referring to a "whole group". [public, nation, team, community, collective population] -objects w/ component parts. - averages .

Question 41

# Explain the logic behind the following... The truth is never the truth because someone says it is

Answer 41

-the truth is only the truth because it's the truth. -An opinion can't prove that an argument is false/true. - No opinion (belief) can prove (fact) something subjective (centered on a person's own mind & prespectives) is true or false.

Question 42

In flaws get rid of AC that ...

Answer 42

i. undermine premise(s) ii. bring up irrelevant issues iii. refer to a fallacy that didn't occur in the argument.

Question 43

# When dealing with flaws what dos the following phrase mean? Fails to consider

Answer 43

-argument doesn't talk about something that would weaken the stimi. - These are commonly wrong because what's being neglected doesn't actually hurt the stimulus.

Question 44

# Fill in the blank Make sure your understanding of the flaw is _________ & _______.

Answer 44

conceptual & flexible

Question 45

# Fill in the blank When you recognize that the author is claiming that ONE characteristic, opinion, or sample set is "enough" to prove something more general or (less commonly) when you notice that the author is using some statement about a group or larger entity to say something about an individual you __________________

Answer 45

know for certain that there us a problem with how the evidence is being used to support the conclusion.

Question 46

# Fill in the blanks _Every single time a primary characteristic (or two) is used to justify a conclusion- you know that ____a_____, while it may be ____b___ is ____c_____.

Answer 46

a. characteristic b.important c.is not enough to prove the author's point.

Question 47

In flaws you eliminate AC that suggest a premise(s) to be false & have this type of wording

Answer 47

"takes for granted that a premise could be true" or "Overlooks that a premise could be false"

Question 48

# Explain the flaw ... "I thought my hair looked bad, but when I went in to get it cut, all of the stylists in the salon thught it looked great and advised me not to cut it. Therefore, I was clearly wrong."

Answer 48

Eventhough it maybe true that stylists are valued for their opinion and are probably more intune with culture, that does not mean that the common opnion of the sylists in the salon is the truth. It is still just an opinion.

Question 49

# Fill in the blank To find an assumption an argument relies on _________.

Answer 49

- the first place to look is the conclusion to see if there are any new terms not mentioned in the premise. - then you gotta think what in the premises could lead the author to believe the new term in the conclusion.

Question 50

Name the three (3) conclusion flaws & their flags.

Answer 50

i. causation: causal conclusion ii. equivocation: new stuff in the conclusion iii. exclusivity: necessary language in the conclusion (ironclad language)

Question 51

What are the three (3) patterns for wrong answer choices in NA?

Answer 51

i. irrelevant ii. helps but is not needed iii. too strong

Question 52

# ID: SA or NA The smallest amount for the conclusion to work

Answer 52

NA - assumption doesn't have to make conclusion valid/airtight - if false weakens/undermines conclusion then it's necessary / needed to be valid. - the SECOND you pass the conclusion, it's no longer necessary.

Question 53

Whenever you see a survey in a stimulus, you should IMMEDIATELY look for _________.

Answer 53

survey flaws.

Question 54

What is the most common way the LSAT presents Equivocation, and how would you go about - strengthening - weakening - necessary - sufficient

Answer 54

Most common: New concept in the conclusion. strengthen: link weaken: widen the gap between new term + relevant premise. necessary: link sufficient: link 100% air tight.

Question 55

# Define & give an example Apples =/= Oranges

Answer 55

falsely equates EX: since Mimi likes Nancy, Nancy must like Mimi.

Question 56

How would you strengthen/weaken a composition fallacy?

Answer 56

strengthen: same characteristics weaken: characteristics are NOT the same.

Question 57

How would you go about: strengthening weakening fixing a necessary assumption a perception v. reality fallacy?

Answer 57

-strengthening: they and/or the evidence is not wrong -weakening: they and/or the evidence is wrong -necessary: they and/or the evidence is not wrong

Question 58

What game plan strategy should you turn to if you're down to two (2) answer choice in a flaw question & you're stuck?

Answer 58

1. Make sure BOTH answers are true (check LF). 2. Make sure it's actually an issue. (ask: "if I fixed that, would that make the argument better?) 3. Check your conclusion 4. Project forward.

Question 59

Although there are several ways that it might show up, what are the most common way(s) a survey flaw shows up? (2 in specific)

Answer 59

1. By far the most common is a mismatch between the group being surveyed + the group in the conclusion that's being drawn. 2. The other ways that it ca show up are... biased or unrepresentative samples, misleading questions, inaccurate responses.

Question 60

What are the three (3) ways to strengthen a causal conclusion? & Explain what the effects would be.

Answer 60

1. same cause same effect: adding another data point shows not an isolated event. AC will establish similar behavior & okay to use comparison. 2. no cause no effect: control group functioning properly. 3. eliminate alternate cause: it wasn't something else that caused the effect. -- Remember you're not trying to make the argument valid. You are just tryingt i make it more likely that, the correlation is the case

Question 61

Name the three (3) "premise" flaws & their triggers.

Answer 61

1. sampling: premises abt experiments/polls/surveys 2. converse/inverse: premises with conditionality. 3. comparison: premises comparing two (2) things. ** make sure to verify #1&2 **

Question 62

# In an LR question prompt ... what do the following phrases mean? ignores/neglects the possibility/ fails to consider

Answer 62

Assumes thata counterargument is false. Ask yourself ... "Did they really ignore it? Would this be a problem for the conclusion?" Remember these are the most commonly wrong AC because what's being neglected doesn't actually hurt the stimulus. &/or it's not being neglected. (when language appears in the AC & not part of the actual stimulus)

Question 63

# In an LR question prompt ... What do the following phrases mean? Assumes/ takes for granted/ assumes without warrant

Answer 63

Assumes something is true (when it may not be) Ask yourself: " are they really assuming this? Does this really help the argument?" Remember: For AC's w/o a prompt that says this... these are most commonly wrong becuase the argument doesn't actually assume that thing &/or if it did, it wouldt help the argument.

Question 64

What does "takes for granted" mean?

Answer 64

assumes to be true