Types of Flaws (LSAT 2k26)

Causation vs. Correlation Flaws

type of overlooked possibility, in which the arguer takes two things that happen at the same time (correlation) and concludes that one of those things caused the other (causation).

Sampling Flaws

a type of flaw that arises when a conclusion is drawn from a sample that is not representative of the entire population.

Ad Hominem Flaws

a type of logical fallacy where the arguer attacks the character or motives of a person instead of addressing the argument itself.

Quantity vs. Percent Flaws

a type of flaw that occurs when an argument confuses numerical values expressed as quantities with values expressed as percentages, leading to erroneous conclusions.

Lack of Evidence vs. Proof Flaws

a type of flaw that occurs when a conclusion is drawn based on the absence of evidence rather than on the presence of proof, often leading to unfounded assertions.

False Dichotomy Flaws

a type of logical fallacy that presents two options as the only possible choices when, in fact, other alternatives may exist, often misleading the audience.

Possible vs. Certain Flaws

a type of flaw that occurs when an argument conflates possibilities with certainties, often leading to overstatements or unwarranted conclusions about outcomes.

Circular Reasoning Flaws

Also known as "begging the question", circular reasoning is when the arguer assumes that his or her conclusion is already true when attempting to prove that same conclusion

Equivocation Flaws

The arguer uses a potentially ambiguous term in more than one sense and consequently misleads the reader.