Logical Reasoning Flashcards
Where will the reasoning flaws exist?
between the support and the conclusion. That is the only flaw the LSAT is concerned with - the flaw in the relationship between the conclusion and the support used.
Why doesn’t the support justify the point?
if we take the support to be true…
is it enough, by itself, to absolutely PROVE the main point?
three questions you ask yourself for every logical reasoning question.
What’s the point?
how is it supported?
what’s wrong with that?
piece does not equal puzzle
when the author falsely overvalues one consideration and the expense of others.
three subsets of piece doesn’t equal puzzle
overvalues a trait, overvalues an opinion, overvalues a sample set
overvalues a trait
putting too much emphasis on one particular characteristic or “clue” to reach a conclusion. If it is not enough to guarantee the outcome, the argument is flawed.
primary driver
determining whether or not a certain characteristic is a “primary drive is SUBJECTIVE
we are being asked to be OBJECTIVE
they are testing your ability to look for absolute proof
REMEMBER- every characteristic is NOT enough to prove the authors point.
overvalues an opinion
the truth is never the truth because someone says it is. the truth is the truth because it’s the truth.
one’s opinion does not guarantee anything
an opinion cannot prove that an argument is false the same as it cannot prove an argument is true.
no opinion can prove something that is subjective.
overvalues a sample set
arguments are flawed when they reach a general consensus based on evidence from a limited portion of whatever group or system they are discussing
on the LSAT, we do not question…
our job is not to question whether the reasoning given is in fact true
extrapolation
the action of estimating or concluding something by assuming that existing trends will continue or current method will remain acceptable.
placing too much significance on one characteristic, one opinion, or an unrepresentative sample set.
faulty transferring
transferring information or ideas from one situation to another in some faulty way.
author falsely equates subject matter
author falsely equates characteristics
author falsely equates relationships
falsely equates subject matter
it’s best to focus on the differences in subject matter between the support and conclusions.
falsely equates characteristics
LSAT will use assumed, but not actual opposites.
the author is mistakenly equating not being something with being some sort of opposite of that thing.
You don’t have to be tall to be short - you could be somewhere in the middle.
falsely equates relationships
The LSAT there can be a very strong connection between the subject mentioned in the support and the subjects mentioned in the conclusion. However, the relationship can be altered in some way.
most of x is y and most of y is x is NOT VALID
enough, but not necessary
one way to falsely equate characteristics is to assume that one way to do something is the only way to do something, or mistaking one way for the only way.
“mistaking sufficient for necessary”
the author uses evidence that one element or characteristic is enough to reach the outcome to conclude that the element or characteristic MUST BE involved with the outcome.
which one of the following, if assumed, allows the argument’s conclusion to be properly drawn?
what answer makes the conclusion one hundred percent guaranteed based on the reasoning given.
Context issues
the subjects and characteristics mentioned in the premises will be an almost exact match for those that are in the conclusion, but the argument will still be flawed.
the argument could fail to take account of its context - the situation might be different, but the author assumes it has stayed consistent.
Reasoning issues
the author jumps to a conclusion or equates things that shouldn’t necessarily be equated through changes in subject matter, characteristic, or relationship.
correlation and causation
no amount of correlation can even prove a causal relationship
ask yourself: would that be enough information to be CERTAIN
evidence of correlation, or lack thereof, can strengthen or weaken a claim of causation, but it could never, ever prove a claim of causation.
of the following, which one most accurately expresses the main point of the argument?
what do we think is the conclusion within the argument, then find the answer that best represents that understanding.
The part about ____ figures in the argument in which one of the following ways?
decide the role played by the part in question then find the answer that best represents that understanding.
A component’s role is defined by how it relates to the main point.
“the argument’s reasoning is questionable because the argument…”
what is wrong with the argument?
think about the argument critically before moving on to the answers
“which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?”
figure out what is wrong with the argument then select the answer that exposes that flaw.
Tempting wrong answers will relate to the conclusion or the support, but not the problem that exists between them.
“each of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument EXCEPT”
figure out what’s wrong with the argument then eliminate answers that help fix that issue.
the right or may or may not weaken the argument - it might actually have no direct impact on the argument.
“which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends on?”
start by figuring out what is wrong with the argument.
the key word here is “depends” that does not mean that the right answer needs to be important in addressing the argument flaw. It simply means that the answer is something that needs to be true in order for the argument to work.