(older version) LSAT Short Argument - Argument Tactics & Common Flaws, including typ S & W correct ACs

Question 1

Men over the age of 35 tend to lose muscle mass as they grow older. Barry Bonds is over 35. Therefore, Barry Bonds is losing muscle mass.

Answer 1

General to Specific
(Stereotype, Generalization)

ID: Evidence looks like stereotype, 51% words
Conclusion will be about individual/subset

Assumption: Generalization applies to specific
Flaw: Generalization may not apply to specific

Strengthener: Makes individual more like the group being stereotyped
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 makes for good, unflawed argument

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

Question 2

Real estate markets are not doing well. Therefore the overall economy is not doing well.

Answer 2

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

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

Question 3

Almost everyone I talked to at the UT snowboarding club believes that smoking pot is morally acceptable. Therefore most Americans believe that smoking pot is morally acceptable.

Answer 3

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

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

Question 4

During my entire undergraduate career, I never started writing a paper until the night before it was due and I got an A on every single paper. Therefore, now that I work for the Attorney General, I can rest assured that I do not have to start working on a case until the night before the first hearing.

Answer 4

Argument by Analogy

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.

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”)

A: The situation in the Evidence is similar enough to to the situation referenced in Conclusion warrant the conclusion drawn

F: 2 situations may not be similar enough to warrant the conclusion

Strengthen: Critical Similarities (but note, a difference can be used to strengthen case i.e. convince that current situation is more applicable than previous).

Weakener: Critical Differences

Common analogy–
past vs present analogy
past vs future analogy
present vs future analogy

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

Question 5

Experts in the field of Scientology agree that treating depression with medication is pointless. Therefore, treating depression with medication is pointless.

Answer 5

Bad Information from Experts, Studies, and Data

ID: Evidence will say something like “Experts say, studies say, data says, records say, recorded info…” but Conclusion will be purely in Reality, and there is no experts/studies/data/records/reports reference language in the Conclusion…i.e. the C is just accepting on truth of “reported” stuff in E. See PT 64.2.7 Foods.

BUT if there is “bad info” language in E and also the C as well, it’s not a bad info flaw.

A: Experts etc are correct
F: Experts etc are wrong - bad info flaw

S: 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 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

Question 6

The legal definition of intoxication is having a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or greater. Jared knows that his BAC is over .08. Therefore, Jared knows that he is legally intoxicated.

Answer 6

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)

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

Question 7

English 101 is not required for my major. English 101 deals with boring material. Therefore, there is no reason to take English 101.

Answer 7

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

If the emphatic language is in the evidence but NOT in the CONCLUSION, it is not an extreme conclusion FLAW

A: 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)

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

Question 8

I have to go to school. I crashed my car and it is beyond repair. My parents will not buy a new car for me. Therefore, I will have to take the bus to school.

Answer 8

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

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)

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

Question 9

According to General Social Survey database, pickup truck ownership is correlated with satellite dish ownership. Therefore, the purchase of a pickup truck will lead one to purchase of a satellite dish.

Answer 9

Correlation to Causation (also form of Extreme Conclusion if argument assumes causal relp in conclusion is ONLY explanation)

symbolize with trigger –C–> result

If you see causal language in the conclusion, think 3 things to help you go fast–

1. I have an 85% chance that this argumenthas CORRELATION CAUSATION flaw.
2. The evidence in the argument is probably a bunch of correlations, so I can read evidence fast!
3. TMs love to use Alt Explanation(and less frequently, reverse causality ACs) for correlation causation WEAKEN question.

ID will be located in the Conclusion, such as:

If-then (note most if-then stmts are not causal)
Verbs of Change-indicates smthg is changing smthg else (makes, leads, damages, promotes, causes, decreases, consequence, etc)
Explains/Responsible/Effect
Because (Causal Because is difft from Conclusion ID Because.)
Genetic Predisposition

note that causality corr flaw will often have language like “those who do” and “those who don’t…“

note that a stmt of negated causality (i.e. “memory loss is not caused by aging”) in the conclusion is NOT an identifer of a C-to-C FLAW

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)

What does More and Better correlation look like for A–>B? It looks like ~A–>~B. Simply NO CAUSE, NO EFFECT 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.

Note
Causation is a strong concept in LSAT, but not absolute. So “causality” in LSAT = increased likelihood
Correlation is weak concept

Look out for “not the case” that eliminates possibilities

*note if you have an anti-causal languagesituation (XXX generally is NOT because of, or not the reason of YYY), draw the C arrow crossed out to symbolize, but know it is NOT AN CORR-CAUS flaw

Question 10

The University of Hawaii has a beautiful campus. Therefore, the U of H has a great learning environment.

Answer 10

Concept Shift

ID: Totally unrelated, or related but different, concepts between Ev and Conclusion

Assumption will be in form: (whatever E says about Socrates) –> (Whatever C says about Socrates)

Process

1. notice Socrates term (term in Ev and Conclusion)
2. notice TICNIE (term in Conclusion, not in Evidence, which is about the Soc term)
3. write your arrow for if-then on the page to create assumption, remember Socrates is not IN the assumption.
4. Fill in if and then of the assumption, which is just using the Concepts that were ascribed to Socrates (which shifted). What does Ev say about Socrates (if), what does C say about Socrates (then)

Concept Shift may use: Morals (community)/Ethics(indiv), Obligation(bound)/Duty(moral) …

Concept shift always has Socrates term (item shared btw Ev and C)

when you see a Socrates term twice in E and C, go into Concept Shift mode, symbolize E and C in if-then arrows, take to ACs… like 63.2.11 Meyer*

Strengthen: Correct AC will not simply restate the argument. It will STRENGTHEN the if-then form of the assumption. Note correct AC’s if stmt should match if stmt in assumption

Weaken: Weakens if-then form of assumption. Trigger is True, Result is False

TMs try to hide flaws with PRONOUNS and SYNONYMS

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

Question 11

Anyone who falls from the 45th story of the Empire State Bldg will have a bad day. Therefore, Suezienne must have fallen from the 45th floor of the Empire State Bldg.

Answer 11

Confusion of Sufficient and Necessary (subset of extreme conclusion flaw)

ID: Basically flipping the trigger and result – note that “must” is a necessary condition (aka results) indicator and “anyone” is a sufficient condition (aka if aka trigger) indicator

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 argument has ZERO if-then, ZERO trigger-result stmts, then eliminate this Answer Choice! But note there are many ways the TM create if-then stmts without using the words “if” and “then”

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

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

Question 12

Every time Punxatawney, the famous groundhog, sees his shadow on Feb 2, winter will persist for 6 more weeks. Obviously, winter will go on for 6 more weeks this year.

Answer 12

Assuming the Trigger

ID: Conclusion matches the RESULT of an if/then stmt in Evidence, or Conclusion matches the negative of the TRIGGER of an if/then stmt in the Evidence

NOTE: 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.

2 sub-types: 1.) You can have a NAKED TRIGGER, if that trigger is alone with no other evidence. 2.) you can have a SUPPORTED ASSUMING THE TRIGGER where you have multiple pieces of evidence and the assumed trigger is supported by another assumption.

A: Assumes trigger true
F: Maybe trigger is not true

S: Make trigger more likely to be true
W: Make trigger less likely to be true

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

Question 13

Six percent of St. Edward’s students go to law school. Four percent of UT students go to law school. Therefore, more St. Edward’s students go to law school than UT students.

Answer 13

Confusion of Numbers and Rates

ID: Rate in the Evidence and Raw Numbers in the Conclusion or vice versa

A: “roughly same” size groups
B: group size differs greatly

Common strengthener confirms roughly same sized groups. Common weakener confirms different sized groups.

note that safety and danger are concepts in terms of rates and denominators

Note that RATE can be very subtly hidden in language like LIKELY, more PROBABLY, with raw numbers in teh evidence. Great Example is 65.2.20 journalist

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

Question 14

Cain and Abel’s has great drink specials. Therefore Cain and Abel’s is better than Posse East.

Answer 14

Comparison Flaw

ID: any sort of comparison in the conclusion

(tip: Get your VERSUS OUT! draw “versus scale” with evidence for one option on one side, and evidence for the other option on the other side, even if that other option is “do nothing” Helpful to think of it as evidence vs counterevidence)

A: Posse East does NOT have great drink specials (stay within scope of comparison)
F: Maybe Posse East DOES have great drink specials

S: Bad things about Posse East drink specials
W: Good things about Posse East drink specials

S: Other factors do NOT disrupt the balance
W: Other factors MAY disrupt the balance

S: Good things generally about C&A/bad things generally about PE
W: Bad things generally about C&A/good things generally about PE

Stay within the scope of the comparison e.g. in this case “better” is very broad, so all types of factors relevant when comparing CA and PE. But e.g. if it were “better for your wallet” then quality of food, ambience, etc would not be relevant.

Always write xxx vs. xxx to symbolize, circle winner

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

Note if you have a “balancing” or “seesaw” type comparison question where you are comparing two options, the TMs LOVE to use correct ACs that rule out OTHER factors subtly, using “only” or “no other” etc for STR and WKN questions (see PT 64.2.17 arch “only considerations…”)

Question 15

Law School increases your knowledge of the world by leaps and bounds. Therefore law school has a positive effect on your life.

Answer 15

Net effect Flaw (type of comparison flaw)

ID: some sort of Net Effect in the conclusion esp “OVERALL” or “PROFIT”

Assumption: Knowledge issue is the FACTOR, tipping effect to one side
Flaw: other factors may impact Net Effect

Be hyper-concerned about OTHER FACTORS

• *PROFIT implicitly is net effect issue: revenues outweigh expenses**
• *always symbolize xxx (pros) VS. xxx (cons), list positive and negative factors underneath**

Note if you have a “balancing” or “seesaw” type comparison question where you are comparing two options, the TMs LOVE to use correct ACs that rule out OTHER factors subtly, using “only” or “no other” etc for STR and WKN questions (see PT 64.2.17 arch “only considerations…”)

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

Question 16

You will get an LSAT homework assignment at the end of this lesson. Therefore you should study for the LSAT tomorrow afternoon.

Answer 16

Recommendation (type of comparison flaw, but you are 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” 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.

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)

(tip: draw a “versus scale” with reasons for one option on one side, and reasons for the other option on the other side, even if that other option is “do nothing” Helpful to think of it as evidence vs counterevidence)

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**

Note if you have a “balancing” or “seesaw” type comparison question where you are comparing two options, the TMs LOVE to use correct ACs that rule out OTHER factors subtly, using “only” or “no other” etc for STR and WKN questions (see PT 64.2.17 arch “only considerations…”)

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

Question 17

If one attains an education, one will have a fulfilling life. Therefore the more education you have the more fulfiliing your life will be.

Answer 17

Degree/Dichotomy (common flaw)

ID: Dichotomy in evidence, degree in conclusion or vice versa

F: treats a relative property as if it were absolute

F: infers incremental relationship from evidence that merely indicates one is sufficient to warrant the other

F: similar wording to two flaws above

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

Question 18

The Sandbums and Volleynerds tied for first place at the annual Vermont Sand Volleyball Tournament. Surprisingly, the Volleynerds drank beer all day, while the Sandbums did not drink any booze. Therefore, drinking beer does not alter a volleyball team’s playing ability.

Answer 18

Different Baseline (Starting Point)

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

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

Question 19

You failed to prove that you have ever taken a shower. Therefore, you have never showered.

Answer 19

Polar Opposite

ID: Evidence describes failure to prove, or failure to show, but Conclusion goes too far and says it’s not true instead of not knowing

(note: easy to confuse PO with Confusion of S&N, but notice PO is difft in that the conclusion talks about PROOF OF FALSITY)

A; if you can’t prove it, it must not be true
F: takes lack of proof to be proof of falsity

F: concludes simply because there is not evidence in favor of POV, there is evidence AGAINST POV

F: Infers from failure to disprove a claim, that claim is true

F: Confuses inadequate evidence of truth as evidence for falsity

Weakener: Stmt that was believed for questionable reasons may nonetheless be TRUE

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

Question 20

Amy might do well on the LSAT. Therefore, she will score above 178.

Answer 20

Weak to Strong Flaw

ID: Weak Evidence –> Strong Conclusion

F: “might” (1% word) is not strong enough to support “will” (100% flaw)

from asssignment: “can” is much weaker than “are” (100%) in conclusion

note here that “well” is a weak word, but 178 is very strong

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

Question 21

John argued that since our Thai food trailer expects lots of business today, we should go get the ginger to spice things up. However, that will not help. After all, Liam O’Malley, our only red headed friend, knows nothing about cooking or the food service industry and he is a little boring.

Answer 21

Vague Term

ID: repeated terms w/ multiple possible defns or meanings. Note TMs love pronouns (that, this, etc) to conceal repeated use of that term

F: Equivocates (back-and-forth) w/ respect to critical term
F: Illicitly shifts meaning of term
F: offers an ambiguous term
F: fails to provide scientifically respectable defn for “napping”
F: never adequately defines what is meant by “healthy”

Examples of vague term flaw–

religious (divine) vs religious (reliable)
public interest (curiosity of public) vs. public interest (what is good)
mature (mental) vs maturity (physical)

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.

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

Question 22

The Texas Chili Parlour is a fun place to hang out. After all, we know that fun people hang out there since it is a fun place.

Answer 22

Circular Reasoning

ID: part of Evidence matches the ENTIRE Conclusion

F: is circular
F: presupposes what it purports to establish

Draws conclusion that is logically equivalent to its premise

often uses Intermediate Conclusion: E–> IC –> Final C

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.

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

Question 23

Thomas Jefferson made illegal moonshine. Therefore we cannot believe his assertions regarding tyranny.

Answer 23

Bad Character

ID: Attack on character or actions of the person making the argument– note this is different than just an attack on character. Must be attack on character of person(s) making argument. Usually it will be in the evidence.

sub-type, somewhat rare: Bad Character-Hypocrite flaw

F: attacks the char of the one making argument
F: attacks the environmentalists rather than their positions

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.

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

Question 24

The only fingerprints on the premises are those of Mr. T, the owner. Therefore whoever has his guest’s missing diamonds must have worn gloves.

Answer 24

Uncommon – “Ignoring the Obvious”

See PT 65.2.11. Ignoring the fact that Mr. T could have his guest’s diamonds.