FLAW lsat logical reasoning

cause and effect

casual arguments claim that a cause and effect relationship exists.

Extremely loophole vulnerable

Causal Indicators:

factor, product, due to, cause, produced by, leads to, effect, responsible for

What type of indicator is this?

cause

causal

What type of indicator is this?

produced by

causal

What type of indicator is this?

leads to

causal

What type of indicator is this?

effect

causal

What type of indicator is this?

responsible for

causal

What type of indicator is this?

factor

causal

What type of indicator is this?

product

causal

What type of indicator is this?

due to

causal

Appearances are (one word) in the LSAT. Question (one word)

Appearances are deceiving in the LSAT. Question everything

The LSAT lies by (one word). Things can happen (one word) of another. There could be a (one word) in the mix that caused 1 or 2 things to happen.

The LSAT lies by omission. Things can happen independently of another. There could be a third in the mix that caused 1 or 2 things to happen.

Correlation and causation do NOT

equal another.

Omitted option indicates that:

there could be just as likely option that is not stated in the argument (question everything)

A→B→C does NOT mean:

A→B→C does NOT mean: 1. C→A or 2. ~A→~C

These are classic flaws, or automatic loopholes in conditional reasoning.

1. Concludes something by reading the conditional premises backwards without negating.

2. Also concludes something by negating the conditional premises and reading it forwards.

Whole to Part to Part to Whole

assumptions that a part represents the whole, or the whole represents the part (pie metaphor)

Overgeneralization reminds us that:

A part does not equal all the parts

Survey Problems

Assume they are done with the greatest possible incompetence

In surveys, question 5 things:

1. Biased questions

2. Biased samples

3. Survey liars

4. Small sample size

5. Other contradictory surveys

These are ALL possible unless the stimulus explicitly accounts for the error.

False Starts is when you notice:

Two groups are always inconveniently different. Researchers ASSUME two groups are the same in all respects except the ones called out in the study.

Loophole: What if the two groups were different in a key aspect?

Possibility does not equal:

Certainty

Lack of evidence does not mean

evidence of lacking.

BAD EX: It’s not Necessarily True, so it CANNOT be true.

Proof of evidence does not equal

Evidence of proof
BAD EX: It could be true, so it MUST be true.

You can’t prove it’s true, therefore:

It cannot be true
EXAMPLE OF POSSIBILITY EQUALING CERTAINTY (WRONG)

You cannot prove it’s false, therefore

It cannot be false.

EXAMPLE OF POSSIBILITY EQUALING CERTAINTY (WRONG)

There is some evidence it’s true, therefore

It must be true

EXAMPLE OF POSSIBILITY EQUALING CERTAINTY (WRONG)

There is some evidence it’s false, therefore

it must be false.

EXAMPLE OF POSSIBILITY EQUALING CERTAINTY (WRONG)

Implication

Facts DOES not equal someone believing those facts.

Opinions and facts do not…

play well with another.

Irrational people…

Exist.
Loophole for implications: What if the person in question isn’t aware of what their belief implies?

False Dichotomy:

There are more than two options! These arguments pretend that there are only two when there could be more.

False dichotomy stimulus operate by: (2 things)

1. Limiting a spectrum.

   1. Not more does not equal less

   2. Not less does not equal more.

• ex. the quality of orange zest did not deteriorate last night, so it must have improved.

1. Limiting options.

   1. What if there are more?

   2. Keyword: Include

Straw Man arguments

Respond to an opponent by “mishearing” what was said to them. Distracts what was said to make it easier to take down.

Ad Hominems are:

Bad proponent does not equal bad argument.

A proponent’s bias for or against a position does not affect the true or falsity of that opinion.

• Premises about character and motivation only prove claims about character and motivation.

Loophole: What if this person’s character/motivation doesn’t affect the truth?

Circular Reasoning:

• Can’t prove, as reasoning is circular.

• Assumes conclusion is true without proving it is. Tough to figure out what the conclusion is. Circular arguments often repeat their conclusion.

• Flag: Repetition between premises and conclusion (Arguments)

Equivocation:

Happens when author changes the meaning of a word through an argument.

• Loophole: What if we shouldn’t let words change in meaning?

Appeal Fallacies

Opinion does not equal fact! Happens when opinion is turned into a fact by:

• Invalid appeal to authority

  • Ex. Non expert on the subject supports the conclusion

• Invalid appeal to public opinion

  • A high percentage of believers DOES NOT EQUAL TRUE. (Widespread, mainstream, same thing)

Loophole: what if this opinion does not equal evidence of fact?

Irrelevant!

Premises are entirely unrelated to the conclusion.
Loophole: What if the premises and the conclusion have nothing to do with another?

Percentages does not equal:

Percentages does not equal: NUMBERS! or vice versa.

One thing they’re purposely not mentioning: group size

→ The AUTHOR CHEATS to prove validity and always assume group size remains the same

yo-yos sold today could be much higher than yesterday