LSAT Loophole Classic Flaws - Definitions

Bad Conditional Reasoning

reads the conditionals supplied in the premises incorrectly.

reads the conditional chain backwards without negating.

negates the premise and reads straight through.

Bad Casual Reasoning

assumes two things are correlated.

forgets about omitted options.

Whole to Part

Part to Whole

loophole: what if wholes/parts don’t necessarily equal parts/wholes?

Overgeneralization

taking a premise about one small thing and turning it into something big.

Survey Problems

You should always assume surveys are done with the greatest possible incompetence.

Biased Samples

Biased Questions

Survey Liars

Small Sample Size

Other Contradictory Surveys

False Starts

Researchers always assume that two groups are the same in every factor other than the one that is part of a study.

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

Possibility ≠ Certainty

lack of evidence ≠ evidence of lacking

proof of evidence ≠ evidence of proof

Lack of Evidence ≠ Evidence of Lacking

It’s not necessarily true/false so it cannot be true/false

Proof of Evidence ≠ Evidence of Proof

it could be true/false so it must be true/false

Implication

Person has a belief

Crazy person mentions a factual implication of that belief

Crazy person claims that person believes the implication of that belief.

Loophole: What is the person in question isn’t aware of what their belief implies?

False Dichotomy

Limits a spectrum: assumes there are only 2 options when there are really 3. up, down, unchanged

Limits options: pretends there are only 2 options when there could be more.

Loophole: What if there are more than 2 options?

Straw Man

“responding” to an argument by “mishearing” what was said. Look for a mismatch between the first speaker’s argument and what the second speaker responded with.

Loophole: What if what they sai has nothing to do with the claim they’re pretending to respond to?

Ad Hominem

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

Circular Reasoning

Assumes the conclusion is true before doing the work of proving it. Source? trust me bro.

Loophole: What if we can’t use the conclusion as evidence for itself?

Equivocation

Changing the meaning of a word throughout the argument.

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

Appeal Fallacies

OPINION ≠ FACT

invalid appeal to authority/public opinion

Loophole: What if this opinion doesn’t equal evidence of fact?

Irrelevant!

Loophole: What if the premises and the conclusion have nothing to do with each other?

Percentages ≠ Numbers

Premises about numbers almost never lead to conclusions about percentages and vice versa.

Always assume group sizes remain the same. They do not.