LSAT Short Argument Common Flaws - REFRESH Flashcards
General-Specific: stererotype/generalization
Specific-General: representativeness OR
Specific-General: dominates (SG-dom is less common than SG-represent)
General to Specific
ID: Evidence looks like stereotype, 51% words (as opposed to ALL or UNANiMOUS, falling short of an accurate stereotype)
Conclusion will be about individual/subset despite the evidence being about less than 100%
Assumption: Generalization applies to specific
Flaw: Generalization may not apply to specific
- *Strengthener:** Makes individual more like the group being stereotyped (Side note on “even better” or “even worse” or “even farther” type difference, this can actually be used to strengthen case i.e. convince that current situation is more applicable…also possible to see in Argument by Analogy)
- *Weakener:** Makes individual less like the group being stereotyped
Note: the word “all” or “unanimous” in the argument in General to Specific situations removes the possibility of a flaw, so it would actually make for good, unflawed argument
Specific to General
(Representativeness)
ID: Conclusion is much broader than evidence
A: Group in Ev representative of group in Conc
F: Group in Ev not representative of group in Conc
Strengthen: Critical Similarities
Weakener: Critical Differences
Note obscure topic may offer you NON-critical similarities/differences
Specific to General
(Dominates)
ID: Conclusion is much broader than evidence
A: Group in Ev dominates group in Conc
F: Group in Ev doesn’t dominate group in Conc
Strengthener: Info confirming relative impact
Weakener: Bring up other sources of impact
(Stereotype, Generalization)
Concept Shift (will see 4 - 13 times on LSAT!)
Fairly simple in structure, but pronouns and synonyms will be scattered to hide the fact it is a Concept Shift flaw.
Assumption for Concept Shift is always in an If-Then form, and is regarding a Socrates term
ID: When you see totally unrelated, or related but different, concepts between Evidence and Conclusion about a thing mentioned both in ev AND conclusion (aka Socrates term). Conclusion has brand new concept not in Evidence. Will have TICNIE (term in Conclusion, not in Evidence, and it is all about the Soc term)
Always draw arrow when you see this flaw, so you can start construction of assumption!! Assumption for Concept Shift is always in an If-Then form, and is regarding a Socrates term
Assumption will be in form: (Concept 1 that Evidence says about Socrates) –> (other, different Concept 2, not in the evidence, that Conclusion introduces about Socrates)
Example:
The University of Hawaii has a beautiful campus. Therefore, the U of H has a great learning environment.
Socrates Term = “University of Hawaii”
Assumption, which is always in if-then form: campus is beautiful –> great learning environment
Weakener AC: Trigger True of that assumption, but Result False: campus is beautiful, but not great learning environment
Strengthen: Correct AC will not simply restate the argument. But it will STRENGTHEN the if-then form of the assumption. Correct AC for strengthener: Match trigger to trigger and result to result, assumption to AC! if stmt should match if stmt in assumption: when the campus is pretty, the students have a better place to learn
Concept Shift may use:
- Morals (community)
- Ethics(indiv)
- Obligation(bound)
- Duty(moral) .
**When you notice Concept Shift is flaw, you CAN SKIP symbolizing E and C, go straight to symbolizing assumption! when you see a Socrates term twice in E and C, go into Concept Shift mode, put an arrow on page, put Concepts from evidence as Trigger and then New Concept from conclusion as Result, take to ACs… like 63.2.11 Meyer, or 66.2.2 Hippo***
**possible clue you have Concept Shift: when you first read conclusion, and have not read Evidence yet, you see something like “this hippopotamus was not a toy.” The word “this” gives you a clue that hippo was mentioned earlier! So possibly a Socrates term.
Quick Kills: Note correct AC’s if stmt should match if stmt in concept shift assumption. So if you don’t see something about “campus is beautiful” in AC, kill it.
Note that Thought to Reality is a type of Concept Shift, maybe Bad Info Flaw
Bad Information
Bad Information from Experts, Studies, and Data
(think of it a bit like, the conclusion leaves out expert/data/records citation, almost like, the flaw is that the Conclusion writer is not citing your the source in the Evidence, not even via pronoun)
ID: Evidence (and NOT conclusion) will say something like “Experts say, studies say, data says, records say, records indicate, recorded info...” but Conclusion will be purely in Reality, and there i_s no experts/studies/data/records/reports reference language_ (this is critical!) in the Conclusion…i.e. the C is just accepting on truth of “reported” stuff in E. See PT 64.2.7 Foods.
Before you decide it’s a Bad Info Flaw, make sure you are truly jumping to Reality. The conclusion might not explicitly mention the experts/studies/data etc but still may be referencing Thought world where the study/data/reports are happeningt. Eg. PT 76.2.12 Gingko, in which case it is not Bad Info Flaw.
BUT if there is “bad info” language in E and also the C as well, it’s not a bad info flaw, because you are not jumping from Thoughts (thoughts of experts, studies, reports, data, etc) to Reality. It’s the jump from Thoughts to Reality that is the key to Bad Info Flaw..
Assumption: Experts etc are correct
Flaw: Experts could be wrong - bad info flaw
Strengthen: Build credibility of experts etc.
W: Reduce credibility of experts etc.
Note: say to self: “I don’t know about these experts, they could be wrong!” And the quick pick correct answer maybe as simple as experts are lying, experts are wrong.
Note that Thought to Reality is a type of Concept Shift, maybe Bad Info Flaw
Jump from Reality to THOUGHT (remember the categories of thought language: knowledge, belief, intent, motivation… don’t overlook the fact that “solid” sounding words like KNOW or BELIEVE or DETERMINE are indeed thought. Thought words are not always opinion-y sounding)
(note that vice versa, Thought to Reality would be a tpe of CONCEPT SHIFT or maybe BAD INFO)
Jump from Reality to Thought
ID: Flow is from Reality in Evidence to Thoughts in Conclusion. Evidence will simply be stated info (not belief or opinion) and Conclusion will use thought language (knowledge, belief, intent (virtue and motivation?), knows)
Key: the flaw is that Conclusion is making assumption about AWARENESS
***if you have vice versa: THOUGHT (knowledge, belief, intent, motivation) in EVIDENCE and reality in CONCLUSION it is Jump from Thought to Reality which is a type of CONCEPT SHIFT (see 42.2.15 Tech Innovation)*** Also thought to reality be BAD INFO flaw (see bad info flaw flash cards)
A: Thought(s)/Belief(s) of person(s) in Conclusion are correct or aware of facts in ev
F: Thought(s)/Belief(s) of person(s) in Conclusion may be incorrect or unaware of facts in ev
*note that if you see EXCEPT or LEAST LIKELY or LEAST smthg in ACs….that means there is one bad AC (the correct one) and 4 good ACs (the ones you eliminate), so it is a good indicator there are MULTIPLE FLAWS in argument bc it is hard to come up with 4 good ACs from a single flaw*
Argument by Analogy: key: sort out what the PREVIOUS or OTHER situation is and what the current or local situation is
Note comparisons focus on differences, and weighs a choice between situations/options
Note analogies focus on similarities between situations (don’t forget time-related analogies – i.e. assuming now is the same as before or future the same as now, etc)
Argument by Analogy
think: is that REALLY the same thing???
ID: previous situation in evidence, new situation in conclusion, same result for new situation assumed for conclusion. For a an ASS-NEC AbyA question, look for pieces from previous situation and how they are similar/difft from current situation
Sort out what 2 situations are being compared bc this will be scattered among evidenc… sort out which is current vs which is previous (e.g. last season vs this season? another place vs this place?) and sort out what elements from the argument go into the previous situation and which go into the current situation
ID: Notice 2 situations in Ev and Concl described and implicitly compared (but probably not LITERALLY saying “compare” or “analogy”) Note that the situation referenced in the Conclusion itself is probably introduced elsewhere in the argument) yet there are aspects not similar between the 2 situations. Key is to identify the differences between previous situation and current situation.
Remember time-related analogy flaws are assuming SHIT IS NOT CHANGING (aka things are the same)…but in reality remember Garrett saying: Shit always changing.
(hint-so you notice there are 2 situations, think to yourself, hmm is that really the same thing? compare piece by piece to find “differences”)
Assumption: The situation in the Evidence is similar enough to to the situation referenced in Conclusion warrant the conclusion drawn
Flaw: 2 situations may not be similar enough to warrant the conclusion
Strengthen: Critical Similarities (Side note on “even better” or “even worse” or “even farther” type difference, this can actually be used to strengthen case i.e. convince that current situation is more applicable…also possible to Specific to General)
Weakener: Critical Differences
**nuanced difference between Argument by Analogy and Comparison Flaws: AbyA is saying current situation is same as previous situation and concluding something. Comparison is WEIGHING two options vs each other and choosing/recommending. E.g. 66.2.4 says “as effectively as” in conclusion not to choose/recommend, but to say this will happen in this situation bc of similarity to previous situatio**
Bad Character
Bad Character
ID: Attack on character or actions of the person making the argument– note this is different than just an attack on character of someone mentioned in the prompt. Must be attack on character of person(s) making argument, not just anyone involved, but the actual arguer. Usually it will be in the evidence. Can be an accusation of hypocristy, bias, motivations, etc.
Correct AC may dress up character attack with euphemism: treats circumstances potentially affecting the union leaders’ argument as sufficient to discredit those leaders’ argument
*sub-type, somewhat rare: Bad Character-Hypocrite flaw*
F: attacks the char of the one making argument
F: attacks character rather than substance
NOTE: ACs that show Circular Reasoning flaw, Bad Character flaw, or Vague Term flaw is 95% of the time a WRONG answer, very common to see. Rarely are these correct answers, maybe 1/12 or 1/15.
Polar Opposite
Polar Opposite
ID: Evidence describes some kind of failure to prove, or failure to disprove. But the Conclusion, instead of concluding Don’t Know regarding Evidence POV, Concludes PROOF OF FALSITY or PROOF OF TRUTH.
(note: easy to confuse PO with Confusion of Sufficient and Necessary, but notice PO is difft in that the conclusion talks about PROOF OF FALSITY)
Assumption: if you can’t prove it, it must not be true, vice versa
Flaw: takes lack of proof to be proof of falsity, instead of DON’T KNOW
F: Infers from failure to disprove a claim, that claim is true
F: Confuses inadequate evidence of truth as evidence for falsity
Weakener: Information in AC that shows Evidence POV or Evidence statment may nonetheless be TRUE
Correlation-Causation Flaw, Definition of Causality in general, how to ID Correlation-Causation Flaw on LSAT
Note that identifying CORRELATIONS can be very subtle. Will rarely see the word “correlate” in evidence. More like “this happens, that happens” and other weak OBSERVATIONAL language.
Think of 3 tiers of language strength wrt if-then, causal, and correlation:
- Note that if-then statements are 100% language. Strong. Most if-then stmts are NOT causal.
- Note that causal language is weaker than if-then, it doesn’t even mean a significant effect. Just means that A increases likelihood of B to some degree.
- Note correlation is even weaker than causality.
Remember causality is something will happen because of something else, as opposed to what happens without that causal relp. Example of causality: smoking causes cancer. That means there’s no doubt it does. But it doesn’t mean ALWAYS causes cancer, as is the case with if-then relationships, which are absolute and much stronger than causal relp. Causality just means increased likelihood cancer will happen.
What about negated causality? (i.e. “memory loss is not caused by aging”) This in the conclusion this is NOT an identifer of a Corr-Caus FLAW**
The flaw identifier (see types below) for a Corr-Caus flaw is always in the Conclusion of the argument.
**if you see causal language in the conclusion, always symbolize that causality ASAP on paper with trigger –C–> result** and think 3 things:
- I have an 85% chance that this argument has CORRELATION CAUSATION flaw.
- The evidence in the argument is probably a bunch of correlations, so I can read evidence fast!
- TMs love to use Alt Explanation (and less frequently, reverse causality ACs) for correct AC correlation causation WEAKEN question. But also look out for weakener ACs that don’t provide an alt explanation, but just provide new info to rule out the purported causality!
Correlation-Causality FLAW is evident when you see some kind of causal relationship introduced in the conclusion, but from evidence that did not necessarily show causality in that relationship. Correlation by nature is weak, causality by nature is relatively stronger language (but not as strong as if-then language). So the flaw in logic is that the argument did not consider OTHER explanations or other relationships besides that causal relp being assumed and introduced into the conclusion. It’s a flaw of jumping from weak correlation in evidence to strong causation in conclusion. In that sense this flaw type is a sub-type of Extreme Conclusion flaw. It’s a jump from weak to somewhat stronger.
Correct AC for a Corr-Caus flaw will address, directly or indirectly, all the entities involved in purported causal relationship presented in the Conclusion! Beware ACs mentioning entities that are in Evidence but not Conclusion. E.g. if your conclusion is “Thus the ban on fishing is responsible for the rebound in fish population in Lake Quapaw” you are looking for AC that address (explicitly or implicitly) the fishing bans and Lake Quapaw.
ID possibilities for Corr-Caus flaw, again, always in the Conclusion:
- Verbs of Change (most common ID for this flaw): verb in Conclusion indicating one thing will change another – huge number, too many to list. makes, promotes, lead to, cause, results, successful, effective… etc etc many causal words, **and not all causal words are verbs***, see flash cards
- Implied causality (easy to overlook!) in a Conclusion by nature of argument – kind of bordering on causality in assumption. Note that causality and implied causality are not limited to the conclusion, or even this flaw type. Can be in inference questions as well, so when you see causality it doesn’t necessarily mean you have Corr-Caus flaw or even an assumption-based argument.
Example of implied causality, as a general concept, not limited to conclusions: Recently, several alligators were discovered with telltale abnormalities in a swamp. So apparently, industrial by-products have entered the swamp’s ecosystem (following evidence linking swamp alligators with abnormalities and IBP) Symbolized IBP –C–> Alligator Abnormalities.
Example of implied causality, as a general concept, not limited to conclusions: If we want students to be more outspoken, we should encourage them to become involved in student government. Symbolized conclusion: ISG –C–> O
3. If-Then Stmts in the Conclusion– e.g. a conclusion that says if I get hit by a car, then it causes pain (but note, most if-then stmts are not causal)
4. Explains, Responsible, Effect or Effective in Conclusion: your driving habits explain the accidents, the accidents were an effect of your driving habits
5. Because in the Conclusion (think “due to”): (note that Causal because here is difft from Conclusion-Evidence ID because, which is not causal). Must look at context to distinguish. Example of “causal “because: Those who became involved in student government did so precisely because they are outspoken. OS –C–> Inv.SG
6. Genetic Predisposition in the Conclusion: many concepts - TM favorite implying genetics are responsible, which is a type of implied causality
Strengthener AC: Rule out other explanation: Alt explanation for correlation + “is not the case…”
Strengthener AC: Rule out reverse causality: reverse causality for correlation + “not the case…” (i.e. eliminating reverse causality)
What does Reverse Causality look like for A–>B? It looks like B–>A (simple flip). And so Eliminate Reverse Causality looks like B–>~A (negate result)
Strengthener AC: Mechanism of correlation itself is explained or supported as a causal mechanism
Strengthener AC: More and/or Better Correlation i.e. TMs know that increased correlation makes causality more likely. What does More and Better correlation look like for A–>B? It looks like ~A–>~B. Simply NO CAUSE, NO EFFECT, like isolating the variables. This makes sense intuitively, think of “control” science experiment where you run the test without the targeted conditions in order to show the result does not occur. The absence of the result in the “control” test strengthens the case for causality. More and better. See 64.2.22 Heavy Metals.
Weakener AC: Provides alt explanation (common!) or implicility rules out causality for correlation, esp citing OTHER FACTORS not considered, which is basically all the alt explanations. Or, simply providing new info to rule out the purported causality! Note: A correct AC for Corr-Caus weakener may have brand new term or concept. It’s ok to have brand new term in correct AC long as it relates to correlation in evidence Or.provide new info to rule out the purported causality!
- Easy to overlook correct AC for Weakener Q: AC that implicitly rules out the purported causality, without providing a specific alt explanation. Remember the alt explanation is an alternative to the causal relationship asserted in the conclusion. So a correct AC may not necessarily be an explicit description of an alt cause, it may just be something very simple that implicitly RULES OUT the purported causality. E.g. if conclusion of Corr-Caus flaw says “Thus the ban on fishing is responsible for the rebound in fish population in Lake Quapaw” the correct AC could simply be “Prior to the ban, there was practically no fishing at Lake Quapaw.” That’s it, that’s the weakener. i.e. you thought it was causal? Nope, it wasn’t, because there was no fishing in the first place. No explicit explanation for the correlation was given, but you know it was not the fishing.
- Easy to overlook correct AC for Weakener Q: AC that provides new info that generically confirms non-causality without providing a specific alt explanation. E.g. if conclusion of Corr-Caus flaw says “Thus the ban on fishing is responsible for the rebound in fish population in Lake Quapaw” the correct weakener AC could simply be “Several other nearby lakes have also had a rebound in fish population yet had no fishing ban”
Weakener AC: Provides reverse causality for correlation (because a reversible relp is less likely to be a causal relp, e.g. cancer causes smoking?)
Confusion of Sufficient and Necessary
Confusion of Sufficient and Necessary is actually a subset of extreme conclusion flaw…think about it…if you simply have A—>B, but you negate both Trig and Result without flipping Trig and Result, which is the same flawed action as Confusing Sufficient and Necessary, that gives you a false contrapositive ~A–>~B. The combination of A–>B and ~A–>~B stmt tells you, that to get result B, the ONLY WAY (recognize Extreme Conclusion language?) is for A to be true. And that is extreme conclusion flaw, a flawed assumption to draw from A–>B.
Basically flipping the trigger to result and result to trigger. Also note that flipping without negating, and negating without flipping are the same thing. For example if you have A–>B, erroneously taking that as B–>A is the SAME as erroneously taking it as ~A–>~B
Evidence 1: fall from 45th floor –> bad day
Evidence 2: Suzie has had a bad day
C: Suzie fell from the 45th floor
Note that when you see a CSN flaw, you must be ready for an AC that illustrates or states some kind of reversal of SUFFICIENT and NECESSARY…BUT very tricky–since CSN is a subset of EXTREME CONCLUSION, you must ALSO be ready for an extreme conclusion type AC that may be correct!
**if the prompt has ZERO if-then, ZERO trigger-result stmts, then eliminate a CSN Answer Choice!** But note there are many ways the TM create if-then stmts without using the words “if” and “then” so be careful
Flaw: Treats a sufficient condition (i.e. trigger) as necessary (i.e result), and treats necessary condition (i.e. result) as sufficient (i.e. trigger)
(in our class, we call this False Contrapositive)
Conclusion matches the TRIGGER of if/then stmt in Evidence
Conclusion matches the negative of the RESULTS of an if/then stmt in the Evidence
Nuance between Assume the Trigger and CSN:
Conclusion of Assume the Trigger will grab a Result from Evidence relationship w/o evidence that trigger was true, and show it as Result in Conclusion. So the result just jumps into Conclusion World. Still a result though.
Conclusion of CSN will do one of 3:
- Take Trigger from Evidence relationship and present it as a Result in Conclusion,
- Take Result in Evidence and show it as ~Result in Conclusion (negating without flipping).
- Take Result from Evidence and show it as TRIGGER in Conclusion world.
Assuming the Trigger
i.e. taking hypothetical if-then in evidence, transforming it to FACT no longer hypothetical in conclusion.
Assuming the Trigger: is when conclusion assumes the trigger(s) of if-then stmt in EVIDENCE are activated.
Key: When you see the RESULT of an evidence if-then stmt in the conclusion. The if-then stmt make be subtle, e.g. don’t forget definitions are if then, example: “Propaganda is nothing but an attempt to influence behavior through repetition of simplistic slogans” is: attempt to influence behavior through RSS –> propaganda.
Don’t confuse with trigger in conclusion. It is a trigger in the evidence being assumed as activated, and this assumption reveals itself by the result being present in the conclusion.
Correct AC will address elements of assumed trigger(s) from the evidence!
See attached. The conclusion shows FACTS (most-dude, not if-then) which are assuming either ~AEIO and/or ~AEIS are triggers in evidence activated. In other words, the hypothetical if-then stmt in evidence is TRANSFORMED into fact, no longer hypothetical, in conclusion. In an Assuming the Trigger - Assumption Necessary question, do NOT pick an AC that has the result (~SFPE) in it.
Identifiers of Assuming the Trigger is True
- Conclusion matches the RESULT of an if-then stmt in Evidence, without information in the evidence confirming the trigger in the evidence was activated. Don’t be distracted by other new stuff in conclusion, if present! Could still be assuming the trigger from evidence.
- Conclusion matches the negative of the TRIGGER of an if-then stmt in Evidence, without information in the evidence confirming the trigger (well, the negated and reversed result aka trigger via contrapositive) was activated Don’t be distracted by other new stuff in conclusion, if present! Could still be assuming the trigger from evidence.
2 sub-types:
- ) You can have a NAKED ASSUMING THE TRIGGER, if that trigger is alone in evidence with no other evidence. The conclusion is assuming the trigger alone in the evidence is true.
- ) you can have a SUPPORTED ASSUMING THE TRIGGER where you have multiple pieces of evidence and the assumed trigger is supported by another assumption, all in evidence.
Assumption: Assumes trigger in evidence true
Flaw: Maybe trigger is not activated, we don’t have evidence!
Strengthener: Correct AC makes trigger more likely to be true
Weakener: Correct AC makes trigger in evidence less likely to be true
Nuance between Assume the Trigger and CSN:
Conclusion of Assume the Trigger will grab a Result from Evidence relationship w/o evidence that trigger was true, and show it as Result in Conclusion. So the result just jumps into Conclusion World. Still a result though.
Conclusion of CSN will do one of 3:
- Take Trigger from Evidence relationship and present it as a Result in Conclusion,
- Take Result in Evidence and show it as ~Result in Conclusion (negating without flipping).
- Take Result from Evidence and show it as TRIGGER in Conclusion world.
___
Assuming the Trigger is surprisingly simple when you think about it. Basically you are just concluding the RESULT of an IF-THEN stmt is true. That’s it. Almost like you are IGNORING THE TRIGGER and just taking the result as a fact. But it is easy to overlook the ABSENCE of a trigger statement in the conclusion.
Different Baseline
Different Baseline (Starting Point) – note that baseline is kind of hand-in-hand with Corr-Caus, so alt explanation in a way works find as a AC for baseline
ID: Two difft groups are compared in EVIDENCE (again, must have that comparison, in evidence), i.e not just mentioned side by side, but COMPARED/JUDGED, almost like a pre-conclusion in the evidence. But groups in the evidence have difft starting points (either explicitly or implicitly), often bc they are self-selecting groups (think about it–to have SAME starting pt you would need controlled selection)
A: Same baseline opportunity between groups
F: Difft baseline starting points is possible
S: Something suggesting baseline opportunity are indeed similar
W: Smthing highlighting differences in baseline
**Different Baseline flaws often show up with Corr-Causation flaws, Comparison flaws, Bad info flaws**
Extreme Conclusion - doesn’t ignore other options, but explicitly eliminates all other options to leave one option
Extreme Conclusion
ID: Evidence deals with 1 or 2 reasons or methods. But Conclusion EMPHATICALLY ELIMINATES ALL OTHER reasons or methods (using zero percent language) i.e. “no reason” or “obsolete” or “impossible” etc, in the CONCLUSION, and watch for subtle language like “must be…” wrt an option. Jumping from some or anectodal info in evidence CONCLUSION THAT ELIMINATES ALL OTHER POSSIBILITIES
**If the emphatic language is in the evidence but NOT in the CONCLUSION, it is not an extreme conclusion FLAW**
Assumption: There is no other (way/reason etc)…
F: There may be other (way/reason etc)…
S: Eliminate another (way/reason etc)
W: Point out one or more other (way/reason etc)
Extreme Conclusion - ignores other options and doesn’t address or reference other options in any way, simple explicit jump to one option
Extreme Conclusion
ID: EMPHATIC “have to” or “must” etc in the Conclusion ASSERTS THERE IS only one possibility (using 100% language), implicitly eliminating all other options … also look for subtle language like “must be…” wrt an option that implies ONLY
**If the emphatic language is in the evidence but NOT in the CONCLUSION, it is not an extreme conclusion FLAW**
A: There is one (way/reason etc)… i.e. “have to”
F: There are other (way/reason etc)…
S: Eliminate another (way/reason etc)
W: Point out one or more other (way/reason etc)
Comparison Flaw - comparing and selecting from two or more options described in evidence
Note comparisons focus on differences between situations/options
Note analogies foce on similarities between situations
*stay within scope of comparison*
*note comparison flaws often are laid on top of other flaw types in a question, so just be careful about which flaw is dominating*
ID: any sort of comparison in the conclusion, perhaps “better” to weigh two things (even if one of those things is unstated do nothing option)
Draw seesaw as soon as you realize it is Comparison Flaw. Be sure you label options (even if one option is Do Nothing) correctly on either side (below) of the seesaw, but put “asserted winner” of conclusion sitting lower on seesaw. If there is a qualifer or some kind of terms of comparison in the conclusion, put that on the fulcrum (e.g better for your wallet, rather than simply “better”) Then pile evidence and counterevidence on each side – the asserted winner vs. asserted loser.
TMs LOVE to use correct ACs that rule out OTHER factors subtly from the seesaw either to strengthen or weaken, using “only” or “no other” etc for STR and WKN questions (see PT 64.2.17 arch “only considerations…”)
Strenghten: More good things to go on the lower side of the seesaw
Weakener: Good things to go on the higher side
Strengthener: Other factors do NOT disrupt the current seesaw balance
Weakener: Other factors MAY disrupt the current seesaw balance
**Stay within the scope of the comparison** E.g. if you have a conclusion simply saying the “asserted winner” is “better”, that is very broad, so all types of factors relevant when comparing option 1 and option 2. But if the conclusion were saying “asserted winner” it were “better for your wallet” then quality of food, ambience, etc would not be relevant.
**nuanced difference between Argument by Analogy and Comparison Flaws: AbyA is saying current situation is same as previous situation and concluding something. Comparison is WEIGHING two options vs each other and choosing/recommending. E.g. 66.2.4 says “as effectively as” in conclusion not to choose/recommend, but to say this will happen in this situation bc of similarity to previous situatio**
Recommendation Flaw (type of Comparison Flaw, except other options are not explicitly laid out, and knowledge issue is factor)
Note comparisons focus on differences between situations/options
Note analogies foce on similarities between situations
*stay within scope of comparison*
*note comparison flaws often are laid on top of other flaw types in a question, so just be careful about which flaw is dominating*
Recommendation Flaw, but comparing implicitly to a scenario where you are NOT doing rec, rather than a 2nd explicit option
ID: some sort of recommendation w/ “should” or “you need to” or “should” or “ought” in conclusion. For a recommendation flaw, the conclusion will be in the SAME WORLD as the evidence, e.g. in 44.3.22 the conclusion says “if you want to protect puppy from arthritis…: and that phrase indicates the world of recommending an option has been left.
Draw seesaw as soon as you realize it is Comparison Flaw. Be sure you label options (even if one option is Do Nothing) correctly on either side (below) of the seesaw, but put “asserted winner” of conclusion sitting lower on seesaw. If there is a qualifer or some kind of terms of comparison in the conclusion, put that on the fulcrum (e.g better for your wallet, rather than simply “better”) Then pile evidence and counterevidence on each side – the asserted winner vs. asserted loser.
Strengthen: AC offers more things to put on one side of the SEE SAW, or less things on the other
Weakener: vice versa
(but note the presence of the word “should” does not guarantee it is a comparison/recommendation flaw, e.g. 43.2.9 is a Bad Character flaw yet has should in conclusion)
Assumption: Knowledge issue is the FACTOR, tipping rec to one side (stay within scope of comparison!
Flaw: other factors may impact rec
**symbolize rec VS not doing rec, list factors under each**
**note that if you see arguments with recs in the conclusion, it is not necessarily a Recommendation Flaw, because other types of flaws may contain recs**
**nuanced difference between Argument by Analogy and Comparison Flaws: AbyA is saying current situation is same as previous situation and concluding something. Comparison is WEIGHING two options vs each other and choosing/recommending. E.g. 66.2.4 says “as effectively as” in conclusion not to choose/recommend, but to say this will happen in this situation bc of similarity to previous situatio**
