LSAT Flaw Mini-Tables

Flashcards covering various logical flaws and their characteristics in argumentation.

Correlation → Causation (CC)

Sub-Kinds: X→Y; Y→X; third cause; coincidence

Nature: Treats correlation as proof of causation.

CAC: Introduces alternative cause; states correlation ≠ causation.

WAC: Claims correlation proves causation; strong causal language.

Example: “Coffee drinkers live longer → coffee causes longevity.”

Analogy Flaw

Sub-Kinds: Overstated similarity; missing differences; wrong category
Nature: Uses faulty comparison between unlike things.
CAC: Points out difference or irrelevance.
WAC: Treats two things as identical.
Example: “Doctors need licenses → they should advertise like lawyers.”

Comparison / Net Effect / Recommendation

Sub-Kinds: One-sided comparison; missing downside; ignoring alternatives

Nature: Bad recommendation based on incomplete comparison.

CAC: Mentions missing factor or alternative.

WAC: Overstates benefits; absolutist.

Example: “Hybrid cars save gas → everyone should buy hybrids.”

Extreme Conclusion

Sub-Kinds: Moderate evidence → extreme claim

Nature: Uses weak premise to justify absolute conclusion.

CAC: Notes moderate conclusion only.

WAC: Uses “always,” “never,” “all.”

Example: “Some students cheat → all students dishonest.”

Concept Shift (Equivocation)

Sub-Kinds: Shifting definitions; replacing concepts

Nature: Switches subjects/ideas mid-argument.

CAC: Identifies mismatch.

WAC: Equates unrelated concepts.

Example: “Education is priceless → teachers should earn limitless salaries.”

Confusing Sufficient & Necessary

Sub-Kinds: Reversal; negation

Nature: Incorrectly flips conditional logic.

CAC: Points out reversal/negation error.

WAC: Treats necessary as sufficient.

Example: “If study → pass; passed → studied.”

Assuming the Trigger (Result → Trigger)

Nature: Assumes result guarantees the cause.

CAC: States result doesn’t prove condition.

WAC: “Must have,” “had to.”

Example: “Alarm sounded → must be a fire.”

General → Specific

Nature: Applies group trait to individual.

CAC: Notes individuals vary.

WAC: “Every member…”

Example: “UT students party → Johnny parties.”

Specific → General

Nature: Takes one example → universal rule.

CAC: Sample size too small.

WAC: Overgeneralizes.

Example: “My cousin is lazy → all young people lazy.”

Baseline Flaw

Nature: Comparison made with no starting point.

CAC: Points out missing baseline.

WAC: Ignores baseline, assumes policy responsible.

Example: “Crime down → new law effective.”

Bad Information (Bad Source)

Nature: Relies on unreliable/biased/unqualified source.

CAC: Shows source unreliable or irrelevant.

WAC: Attacks source’s character instead of argument.

Example: “Drunk witness said the bridge is unsafe → unsafe.”

Thought vs Reality

Nature: Treats belief/intention as fact.

CAC: Distinguishes belief vs fact.

WAC: Uses belief as proof.

Example: “He believes he’ll win → he will win.”

Polar Opposite

Nature: Failure to prove true → proves false.

CAC: Clarifies unknown ≠ false.

WAC: Turns lack of evidence into disproof.

Example: “No proof aliens exist → aliens don’t exist.”

Rates vs Numbers

Nature: Confuses proportions and totals.

CAC: Clarifies rate vs count.

WAC: Swaps rate with number.

Example: “Crime rate fell → fewer crimes.”

Degree vs Dichotomy

Nature: Treats spectrum as binary.

CAC: Notes gradations exist.

WAC: Only two outcomes.

Example: “Not perfect → worthless.”

Weak → Strong

Nature: Weak evidence used to justify strong conclusion.

CAC: Insufficient support.

WAC: Turns “may” into “must.”

Example: “Some oppose the bill → it will definitely fail.”

Bad Character (Ad Hominem)

Nature: Attacks person not argument.

CAC: Person irrelevant to claim truth.

WAC: Character, bias attacks.

Example: “Don’t trust his view on recycling; he recycles for a living.”

Circular Reasoning

Nature: Premise = conclusion.

CAC: Identifies circularity.

WAC: Rephrases conclusion as premise.

Example: “He is honest because he says he is honest.”

Vague Term

Nature: Meaning of key term shifts.

CAC: Points out ambiguity.

WAC: Uses vague/undefined language.

Example: “We should take advantage of friends → exploit them.”

Ignoring Obvious Alternative

Nature: Ignores reasonable alternative cause.

CAC: Provides alternate explanation.

WAC: Treats alternative as irrelevant.

Example: “She got sick → must be restaurant.”

Straw Man

Nature: Misrepresents opponent’s argument.

CAC: Points out distortion.

WAC: Exaggerates or twists claim.

Example: “He wants to cut waste → he wants to eliminate schools.”

Should vs Is

Nature: Confuses moral claim with factual claim.

CAC: Distinguishes normative vs descriptive.

WAC: Treats “should” as “is.”

Example: “People should recycle → they do recycle.”

Percentage Words

Nature: Confuses proportion words (some, many, most).

CAC: Clarifies correct quantifier.

WAC: Scope jump (“most → all”).

Example: “Most passed → all passed.”

Self-Contradiction

Nature: Argument contradicts itself.

CAC: Identifies contradiction.

WAC: Fake contradiction.

Example: “I never lie, and I’m lying right now.”

Appeal to Emotion

Nature: Uses emotion instead of logic.

CAC: Highlights emotional manipulation.

WAC: Intensifies emotional rhetoric.

Example: “If you disagree, you’re heartless.”