LSAT_Flaw_Common_Wording_Flashcards
Flaw
Common Wording
Equivocation
It uses the term ‘________’ in two different ways.
It equivocates with regard to a central concept.
It trades on an ambiguity in the term ‘________’.
Circular Reasoning
It presupposes what it seeks to establish.
It assumes the truth of the conclusion in its premises.
It argues in a circle.
Ad Hominem
It attacks the person rather than addressing the argument.
It criticizes the source of the claim rather than the claim itself.
It rejects a claim based on the character of the person making it.
Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
It relies on an authority who is not an expert in the subject matter.
It appeals to an irrelevant authority figure.
It takes an expert’s opinion in one field as proof in another.
Sampling Flaw
It bases a conclusion on a sample that is not representative.
It generalizes too hastily from too small a sample.
It assumes the sample is typical of the group it represents.
Comparison Flaw
It treats two things as similar when they are not.
It overlooks differences that make the comparison invalid.
It analogizes between two cases that are different in a crucial respect.
False Choice
It presents two options as if they are the only ones available.
It fails to consider alternative possibilities.
It assumes a false dichotomy.
Causation Flaw
It confuses correlation with causation.
It overlooks the possibility of a third variable.
It assumes that because one event followed another, the first caused the second.
Straw Man
It misrepresents the opponent’s argument to make it easier to refute.
It distorts the original position to create a weaker version of the argument.
It attacks a mischaracterization of the opposing view.
Appeal to Popularity
It treats the popularity of a belief as evidence that it is true.
It assumes that because many people believe something, it must be correct.
It appeals to what most people think as proof of the argument.
Hasty Generalization
It draws a broad conclusion based on insufficient evidence.
It generalizes from too few cases.
It assumes that a small sample represents the whole group.
Slippery Slope
It assumes without justification that one action will lead to a series of events.
It predicts dire consequences from a single action without evidence.
It suggests that taking one step will inevitably lead to an undesirable chain of events.
False Analogy
It bases its conclusion on an analogy between two things that are not sufficiently similar.
It compares things that differ in critical respects.
It assumes that because two things are alike in one way, they must be alike in others.
Red Herring
It introduces irrelevant information to distract from the main issue.
It diverts attention away from the argument by focusing on an unrelated point.
It sidesteps the original argument by raising a tangential issue.
Post Hoc
It assumes that because one event occurred after another, the first caused the second.
It confuses temporal succession with causality.
It mistakes a temporal relationship for a causal relationship.
Loaded Question
It asks a question that presupposes a conclusion.
It frames the issue in a way that assumes guilt or fault.
It asks a question that contains an implicit assumption.
Appeal to Force
It relies on threats or intimidation to compel agreement.
It uses fear of negative consequences as a reason to accept the argument.
It appeals to force or coercion rather than logic.
False Dilemma
It presents only two choices when more exist.
It ignores other potential options or alternatives.
It treats two options as mutually exclusive when they are not.
Appeal to Ignorance
It assumes that a lack of evidence against a claim proves that it is true.
It treats the absence of evidence as proof of the claim.
It argues that because something hasn’t been proven false, it must be true.
Appeal to Pity
It appeals to emotions of pity rather than logical reasoning.
It attempts to persuade by invoking sympathy.
It argues based on a desire to evoke compassion.
No True Scotsman
It dismisses counterexamples by redefining the criteria for membership.
It changes the definition to exclude unwanted exceptions.
It shifts the meaning of a category to protect a generalization.
Cherry Picking
It selects only evidence that supports the argument while ignoring contrary evidence.
It presents biased evidence to confirm the conclusion.
It uses incomplete data to justify a claim.
Begging the Question
It assumes the truth of the conclusion without evidence.
It treats a questionable claim as if it were already proven.
It takes for granted the very point in dispute.
Appeal to Fear
It uses fear to persuade rather than reason.
It argues that something is true because of the potential consequences of disbelief.
It invokes fear of negative outcomes to justify a conclusion.
Nirvana Fallacy
It rejects a solution because it is not perfect.
It compares a realistic solution to an idealized or unattainable one.
It argues against a proposal because it falls short of an unrealistic ideal.
Moving the Goalposts
It changes the criteria for success after the original criteria have been met.
It raises the standard of proof once the argument has been satisfied.
It shifts the requirements for proving a point.
Appeal to Extremes
It exaggerates the argument to an extreme to make it easier to refute.
It presents an extreme version of the opponent’s argument.
It discredits an argument by taking it to its logical extreme.
Appeal to Authority
It cites an authority figure as evidence without evaluating the argument.
It relies on the opinion of an authority rather than evidence.
It appeals to the status of a person rather than the strength of their argument.
Appeal to Consequences
It argues that a belief is true or false based on its consequences.
It focuses on the desirability of a belief rather than its truth.
It concludes something is false because it would have negative consequences if true.
