Loophole Flashcards
Bad Conditional Reasoning
occurs when the author reads the conditionals supplied in the premises incorrectly.
Whole-to-Part & Part-to-Whole
What if the wholes don’t necessarily equal parts?
Overgeneralization
part ≠ all the parts
Survey Problems
always assume they’ve been done w/ the greatest possible incompetence. Possible mistakes…
Biased sample
Survey liars
Biased questions
Small sample size
Other contradictory surveys
False Starts
always assume that the two groups are the same in all respects except the ones called out as part of the study
Possibility ≠ Certainty
Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it’s certain to happen. They treat a possibility as a certainty
Implication
Facts ≠ someone believing in them. What if the person in question isn’t aware of what their belief implies?
False Dichotomy
the author pretends that there are only two options when there really could be more
Straw Man
distort what someone says to make it easier to take down
Ad Hominem
bad proponent ≠ bad argument. It’s just about insulting people.
Circular Reasoning
occurs when you see repetition between the premise and conclusion
Equivocation
happens when the author changes the meaning of a word throughout the argument.
Appeal Fallacies
turning someone’s opinions into a fact. Happens in two ways:
Invalid appeal to authority: uses non-expert authority to support their conclusion
Invalid appeal to public opinion: a high % of random people believing anything has very little bearing on whether that thing is actually true.
Irrelevant
when premises have no relation to the conclusion
CLIR for debate questions
controversy
CLIR for argument questions
loophole
CLIR for paradox questions
resolution
CLIR for premise sets
inference
powerful question types
(SW SCCER), strengthen; weaken; sufficient assumption; counter; contradiction; evaluate; resolution
provable question types (15)
conclusion; inference; mss; fill in; controversy; agreement; na; method; argument part; classic flaw; loophole flaw; principle conform; parallel reasoning; parallel flaw
Which of the following, if true
Weaken
Most undermines the conclusion
Most vulnerable
Count as evidence against
Calls into question
Weaken question stem keywords
weaken correct answer
the most powerful thing you can find to destroy the argument’s conclusion
weaken back-up plan
Does this make the conclusion less likely to be true?
weaken strategy
You already have a loophole. The Loophole zeroes in on the argument’s weakness. Go find the Loophole actualized in the answer choices. We want powerful answer choices.
Which of the following, if true
Strengthen
Most helps to + justify/strengthen/support
strengthen question stem keywords
strengthen correct answer
the most powerful thing you can find to help the argument’s conclusion
strengthen back-up plan
Does this make the conclusion more likely to be true?
strengthen strategy
You already have a loophole. The Loophole exposed the argument’s weakness. Come up with something that plugs the hole exposed by the Loophole. We want powerful answer choices.
Which of the following if true / assumed
Enable the conclusion to be properly drawn / justify the conclusion
The conclusion follows logically if
sufficient assumption question stem keywords
sufficient assumption correct answer
the most powerful thing you can find to prove the conclusion 100% valid
sufficient assumption strategy
You already have a loophole. Go overboard filling the gap exposed by the Loophole until the conclusion is 100% valid. Find the bridge in the answer choices
sufficient assumption back-up plan
If this is true, is the argument 100% completely valid?
Which of the following, if true
Counter
In response to
counter question stem keywords
counter correct answer
the most powerful thing the first speaker could say to destroy the second speaker’s argument
counter strategy
You already have a Controversy. You know the crux of the issue between the first and second speaker. Pretend you’re the first speaker and attack the loophole in the second speaker’s argument. Go find that attack in the answer choices.
counter back-up plan
Is this something the first speaker would say and does it hurt the second speaker’s argument?
If the statements above are true
Cannot be true
Violate the principle
Could be true EXCEPT
contradiction question stem keywords
contradiction correct answer
the thing that contradicts literal words from the stimulus
contradiction strategy
You probably have an inference in your pocket. This inference is an incorrect answer. Don’t choose it. Find something that can’t exist in the world of the stimulus. Don’t fall for crazy nonsense answers. They’re incorrect because they don’t directly violate the facts of the stimulus.
contradiction back-up plan
Does this contradict the stimulus?
The answer to which of the following questions
Which of the following, if true
Evaluate + the argument / the conclusion
Most helpful to know / relevant to evaluating
evaluate question stem keywords
evaluate correct answer
a powerful pop quiz for the argument’s validity
evaluate strategy
You already have a loophole. You want to literally evaluate the argument. The loophole exposed the crux of the argument’s validity, so that’s where you should focus. Go find something that asks about whether the loophole is true in the answer choices.
evaluate back-up plan
Is this crucial for the argument’s validity?
Which of the following, if true
Most helps to + explain / resolve / account for
Discrepancy / paradox / conflict / surprising result
resolution question stem keywords
resolution correct answer
the most powerful thing you can find to make the paradox make sense
resolution strategy
You already have the resolution from your CLIR. Go choose it.
resolution back-up plan
Does this make the paradox make sense?
Main point
Main conclusion
conclusion question stem keywords
conclusion correct answer
a provable translation of the conclusion
conclusion strategy
Bracket and translate the conclusion
conclusion back-up plan
Is this a translation of the conclusion
If the statement above is true / from the statements above
Must be true / follows logically
Inference
Properly inferred / properly be concluded / properly drawn
inference question stem keywords
inference correct answer
the thing you can prove definitely must be true
inference strategy
You already have an inference
inference back up plan
Does this have to be true?
The statements above, if true / by the information above
Most strongly supported
Most strongly suggests
most strongly supported question stem keywords
mss correct answer
The thing you can prove is very, very, very likely to be true
mss strategy
You already have the inference from your CLIR. Go choose it.
mss back-up plan
Does this pretty much have to be true?
Completes
Concludes
A blank at the end of the stimulus
fill in question stem keywords
fill in correct answer
the thing you can prove completes the author’s thought
fill in strategy
You already have the inference from your CLIR. Go choose it.
fill in back-up plan
Does this have to be true?
Point at issue
Point of disagreement
Disagree
Differing opinions
controversy question stem keywords
controversy correct answer
the thing you can prove the two speakers disagree about
controversy strategy
You already have the controversy from your CLIR. Go choose it.
controversy back-up plan
Does the first speaker have to believe this is true/false? Does the second speaker?
Agree on
Point of agreeing
Committed to agreeing
agreement question stem keywords
agreement correct answer
the thing you can prove the two speakers agree about
agreement strategy
You already have the controversy from your CLIR. Eliminate any answer choice that resembles it. Find something you can infer both speakers believe is true
agreement back-up plan
Does the first speaker have to believe this? Does the second speaker?
Any necessary condition indicator: necessary; depends; required; relies
Assumes / assumption
The conclusion does not follow unless
necessary assumption question stem keywords
na correct answer
the thing you can prove must be true, if the conclusion is true.
na strategy
You already have a loophole. Negate your loophole. It is now a necessary assumption. Go find it in the answer choices
na back-up plan
If the conclusion is true, does this have to be true?
Argument proceeds by
Argumentative technique
Method of reasoning
Strategy of argumentation
Responds by
Describes
method question stem keywords
method correct answer
a provable description of what happened in the stimulus
method strategy
You have a loophole or controversy, so you know what happened. Go find an answer choice that describes what happened.
method back-up plan
Did this happen?
Role in the argument
Functions in the argument
Argument part
The reference to / the statement that
Quoting a phrase from the stimulus
agreement part question stem keywords
agreement part correct answer
a provable description of what the phrase is doing in the argument
agreement part strategy
Go back up to the stimulus and bracket the phrase they mention in the question stem. Identify the argument part before looking at the answer choices
agreement part back-up plan
Is this what the phrase is doing?
Flaw / flawed
Most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
Questionable technique employed
The reasoning in the argument / the reasoning above
classic flaw question stem keywords
classic flaw correct answer
a provable description of what the argument did wrong
classic flaw strategy
You already have a Loophole, hopefully it was formed around one of the classic flaws
classic flaw back-up plan
Is this what’s wrong with the argument?
Most vulnerable to criticism on the gounds that it + [Loophole Flaw Prefix]
loophole flaw question stem keyword
loophole flaw correct answer
the correct answer to the loophole flaw class the argument out for ignoring your loophole
loophole flaw strategy
You already have a loophole. Go find the answer choice that calls out the argument for assuming your loophole isn’t a factor.
loophole flaw back-up plan
Was it bad that the argument overlooked this?
Principle / propositions
Most closely conforms
Illustrate
Situation / example
principle conform question stem keywords
principle conform correct answer
matching example or matching principle
principle conform strategy
You already have an inference/loophole. If it’s a Principle Stimulus, burn the principle into your head. Activate the principle with an example for your CLIR inference. If it’s an example stimulus, come up with a principle that bridges the gap exposed by the loophole. Go choose the matching principle/example.
principle conform back-up plan
Does this embody the principle? Does it underlie the example?
Parallel
Most similar
Pattern of reasoning
analogy
parallel reasoning question stem keywords
parallel reasoning correct answer
the answer that’s built around the same Skeleton as the stimulus
parallel reasoning strategy
You already have a loophole. Abstract a skeleton from the stimulus (say what happened in the stimulus while cutting out as many specific nouns and verbs as possible). Overlay the skeleton on each answer choice to see if it fits.
parallel reasoning back-up plan
Does this match the stimulus?
Parallel
Pattern of reasoning
flawed/dubious/questionable/faulty
analogy
parallel flaw question stem keywords
parallel flaw correct answer
the answer choice that exhibits the same flaw as the stimulus
parallel flaw strategy
You already have a loophole. It should reveal a flaw. Go find the same flaw exhibited in the answer choice.
parallel flaw back-up plan
Does this match the flaw in the stimulus?
Percentages ≠ Numbers
always assumes the group size remains the same. Premises about numbers almost never lead to conclusions about percentages and vice versa.
Best Way
uses the words “best way” or a best way keyword (least harmful, most efficient way, most effective, least damaging [superlative] + [value judgement]
Important
identifies something as “important” or an important keyword (primary, primarily, foremost, crucial, critical, imperative, paramount, significant, pressing, vital)
Crazy Nonsense
has nothing to do with anything in the stimulus
Grouped Extreme
centers on the most extreme part of the group discussed in the stimulus (hardest, fewest, best)
Allllmost
it’s totally right except for one word or phrase that is off-the-rails wrong
Opposite Claim
about the opposite of the argument’s conclusion
Dormant Conditionals
never activated by premises in the stimulus
Comparatives & Absolutes
a comparative states a relative relationship between two things (like saying X is more than Y). An Absolute attaches an adjective to a thing (Like saying X is great. No mention of Y)
Strong Answers
Contain bold language and Certainty Power Players (all, none, every, always, required, only, never)
Stepladder
outlines a directly proportional relationship between two things
Powerful Conditionals
connects premises to the conclusion or to other premises
Grouped Opposite
bout the opposite of a group discussed in the stimulus. They’re powerful in causal reasoning, but not much else
Weak Answers
contain flexible language and Possibility Power Players (could, can, tend to, not all, possible, usually, sometimes, possibly, etc.)
Provable Conditionals
reads the conditional chain from the stimulus or states a necessary assumption
