The Brief
A Blog about the LSAT, Law School and Beyond

The key to Logic Games is the 7Sage Fool Proof Method.

LSAT Logic games are pretty much just variations on previous games.  Logic games are easy once you get used to the game types and inference patterns that are used.

How to do you get used to them?

You repeat them.  Over and over.  You print out multiple copies of every game and do it over and over until you master each one.

You're essentially training your mind to see the possible inferences in a game.  Eventually Logic Games become intuitive, and new logic games begin to feel like mashups of old games.

Learn more about this in your LSAT course or on the blog.

Featured image: Elliott Brown

Comment on this

This series is just a sampling of the kind of wisdom ready at hand to anyone in our Discussion Forums. We've interviewed mentors in regards to whether the LSAT is worth the effort and offer a piece of advice for those looking to transition into a law career.

What would you tell someone who’s wondering if studying for the LSAT is worth it?

Sage Alex: The most important thing to consider before deciding whether or not to study for the LSAT is whether or not you want to be a lawyer. If you are passionate about becoming an attorney, then you should devote an adequate amount of time to studying for the exam. The LSAT is arguably the most important component of your application. A high LSAT score opens up the door to the best law schools in the country and can yield tens of thousands of dollars in scholarships. To put it simply, the LSAT is too important a test to forego adequate preparation. It is worth the time and effort to make sure that you are scoring in a range that makes you competitive for your target schools and merit scholarship awards.

Mentor Sam: No matter how you look at it, the answer is yes.

—If you want to be a lawyer: Well, you kind of need to study for the LSAT. Ultimately, decide on what you want to do in life. If your goal is to become an incredibly successful attorney, than going to a top tier law school will help you get there. Getting into a top tier school requires tons of studying for the LSAT.

—If you don't want to be a lawyer: That's okay—the LSAT teaches you to approach everyday tasks and conversations with a more critical eye. It teaches you to be analytical, and to stay sharp.

Mentor Brett: Rarely in life do we truly have second chances. We live in a society that is fixated upon first impressions; whatever you’ve done in the past is going to stick with you for the rest of your life.

But what if I told you that you could take one year and make up for nearly all of the problems you had in college? Maybe you struggled a certain semester; maybe freshman year was rough for you.  If I told you that this one test could make up for all of that—and that if you pounded out a good score, not only could you be accepted, but given a scholarship over someone who scored lower than you on this test but had a higher GPA? The LSAT is the great equalizer and this is the only universal thing that every aspiring law student has on their resume. Take advantage of it!

Mentor Dan: The LSAT opens so many doors financially and occupationally. Before getting hardcore into studying for the LSAT, my dream school was the second best school in my state. Now, my dream school sits at the top of the T14. The LSAT is so learnable, and being that it carries the most weight in the application process, learn it!

Featured image: Craig Sunter

Comment on this

Like many of you, I watch Game of Thrones. While watching the latest episode, I realized the characters make many arguments. So, I thought it would be fun to use some of their dialogue as mini LSAT lessons.

If you don't watch Game of Thrones or aren't caught up, turn away for many spoilers lie ahead.

Scene 1 - Jon Snow wields a cool conditional chain

Jon Snow: "I need you with me if we're going to beat them, and we need to beat them if you're going to survive."

survive → beat them → you with me

Jon uses "need" to indicate necessity along with "if" to indicate sufficiency. Though he states only his major premise without giving the full argument, he correctly assumes that everyone wants to "survive" which would triggers the conditional chain allowing everyone to draw the conclusion that the Free Folk ought to stick with Jon Snow.

Scene 2 - Tormund's like "Hey Snow, let me see that cool conditional chain."

Quickly following Jon's argument, Tormund wants to play with the conditional chain also. Earlier in the dialogue he mentions that Jon died for the Free Folk so "do the same" is referencing that.

Tormund: "If we are not willing to do the same for him, we're cowards. And if that's what we are, we deserve to be the last of the Free Folk."

not willing to die for Jon → cowards → deserve to be last of the Free Folk

Like Jon, Tormund also states only his major premise. He also correctly assumes that none of the Free Folk wants to be the last of the Free Folk nor do they want to be labeled cowards. Hence, by failing either of the necessary conditions, we can contrapose and arrive at the conclusion that the Free Folk "are willing to die for Jon". In context, this means join Jon in war to take back Winterfell from the Boltons.

Scene 3 - Cersei is not half as bright

I find this scene really funny. Olenna says to Cersei, "If you're half as bright as you think you are, you'll find a way out of here, too." Without missing a beat, Cersei replies "Never." Like, she just accepts Olenna's insulting premise and plays along. I almost feel bad for her.

Let's look at this in lawgic.

Olenna: Cersei is 50% as smart as Cersei thinks she is → leave
Cersei: not leaving
Conclusion: Cersei's not very bright

Scene 4 - Blackfish understands the inclusive or

In this scene, one of the Frey idiots threatens Blackfish and says "Yield the castle or I cut his throat."

Blackfish, who clearly understands the inclusive or, thinks to himself:

not yield castle → nephew's throat cut

But I remember from this 7Sage lesson that if I yield the castle, that Frey idiot might cut my nephew's throat anyway. I'm gonna call him out on his shit bluff.

Scene 5 - Jamie with a strong contrapose

This was probably my favorite scene from the episode.

Right before this scene, Jamie simultaneously insults and warns the Frey idiot that "only a fool makes threats he's not prepared to carry out."

makes threats he's not prepared to carry out → fool

Since Frey threatened Blackfish earlier but didn't carry it out, Jamie effectively called him a fool. There's the insult. But Jamie is also warning Frey because we can assume that Jamie does not think himself a fool and hence conclude that Jamie makes threats he is prepared to carry out. Jamie proceeds to make the following threat: "Now let's say I threatened to hit you unless you shut your mouth, but you kept talking. What do you think I'd do?"

not shut your dirty Frey mouth → Jamie hits you

And of course, like the idiot he is, the Frey keeps talking.

Scene 6 - Jamie is fond of unless

Jamie uses "unless" again in this scene, "Have him bathed and fed. Unless you'd like to take his place."

don't want to take his place → bath and feed him

Jamie assumes that the idiot Frey does not want to take the prisoner's place and therefore will bath and feed him. This time they take Jamie's threat seriously.

Scene 7 - Davos also knows how to contrapose a conditional chain too

Davos strings together a conditional argument just like Jon and Tormund did at the beginning of the episode.

Davos: "As long as the Boltons hold Winterfell, the North is divided. And a divided North won't stand a chance against the Night King."

Boltons hold Winterfell → North divided → no chance against Night King

Davos correctly assumes that Lady Lyanna Mormont wants to stand a chance against the Night King and so, contraposing back, will arrive at the conclusion that she should help them kick the Boltons out of Winterfell.

Featured image: Simon Turkas

Comment on this

As part of a new series here in the 7Sage blog, we've asked our community leaders (Mentors, who were selected from among their peers for their outstanding contributions and character, and Sages, who are community leaders who scored above 170 on the LSAT) to answer a series of questions and provide us with their LSAT wisdom.

This series is just a sampling of the kind of wisdom ready at hand to anyone in our Discussion Forums.

What’s the one thing you would tell yourself (if you could go back in time) at the start of your LSAT journey?

Mentor Sam: Don't waste money on other prep courses. Stick with 7Sage and supplement it with The LSAT Trainer (by Mike Kim)! Don't ever say, "XYZ date is still some time away...I can buckle down later." Why? Because "later" will never come.

Sage Alex: I’m going to do everything in my power to get the best possible score. If I don’t succeed in doing well enough to get into a top law school, at least I’ll know that I gave it my all. I can live with knowing that I did not accomplish a goal—but what is unacceptable to me is not putting forth 100% effort. There’s no worse feeling than looking back and saying to yourself, “What if?“

Mentor Brett: I would tell myself that this is a long process and that the people around me who care about me most may very well be some of the greatest threats to my success. That those who haven’t gone through this process truly don’t understand what we have to do and how demanding this test is. I would have had a much more open mind when going through the process. I would have said: "Law school isn’t going anywhere, and if it takes me 1-2 years from graduation before I feel comfortable taking this test—then so be it. I only have to have one good score throughout my entire LSAT studying; the problem is getting to a point where I know that when I take the exam that I’m going to have a good score.

Mentor Dan: To aim high. No, for the highest. If I don't quite reach that goal, so what? I tried my best and achieved the most I could have as a result. Thankfully, I eventually adopted this mindset and avoided an LSAT score over twenty points below a score I know I can achieve.

 

Featured image: Fabrizio Russo

Comment on this

Wondering if you're overdoing it and studying too much for the LSAT? That's a normal worry to have. You might just be working really hard, propelled by a healthy sense of responsibility to fulfill your dreams. Or you might be overdoing it. Do any of these apply to you?

1. You're reading this post. Just kidding. Kind of. If you find yourself Googling things like "how to know if I'm studying too much" or "maximum hours per week to study for the LSAT"—well, maybe you're trying to tell yourself something?

 

2. You've missed so many birthdays/funerals/holidays, your friends don't bother to invite you to anything anymore. There's a difference between supportive friends who know you're busy (and thus might let you know it's ok if you're unable to attend an event) and friends who have straight up given up on you. If you're only finding out about parties or outings after the fact, and this is unusual for you, it might be a sign that you're neglecting your friends. While a high LSAT score can definitely get you places, it won't get you friends. Take care of your relationships.

 

3. You compulsively translate normal conversations into lawgic in your head. What kind of a monster have you become? You're not seeing the Matrix. But you might be hallucinating. Doctors commonly prescribe taking two chill pills and going outside to treat this common ailment (commonly known as "lawgicitus").

 

4. Take a look at your Facebook/Twitter/Instagram posts. More than 50% LSAT related? Think about the most annoying person you've friended/followed on social media. That person probably posts a lot of the same thing (kids, workout pics, what they're eating, etc.) for self-validating reasons. Sound familiar? Does it sound familiar because you are that person with the LSAT? Don't be that person. If you are that person, it's probably time to pump the breaks and get a hobby. Just don't post a ton of repetitive content about that.

 

5. You've taken to identifying the flaws in everyone's arguments. Oh man. Some people get downright socially hazardous when studying for the LSAT. Just because you're busy mastering Flaw questions doesn't mean you need to become the self-appointed Master of Flaws in every conversation! Give it (and your friends—while they still are your friends) a rest!

 

6. Your definition of fun is buying new pencils or doing Logic Games "because you enjoy them." It's much more likely that you've become rather rusty in the recreation department and have forgotten what fun really is.

 

7. You reference LR stimuli/RC passages in casual conversations, prefaced by "I read this really cool LR stimulus/RC passage the other day..." And if you're going to do this, just don't tell people you picked up the cool-ish factoid from the LSAT! (And maybe branch out a little ...)

 

8. Your emotions are directly connected to your PT performance. No, that PT score a few points below your average does not mean that you're a failure or that you're going to end up at the American Samoa Correspondence School of Lawls.

 

9. You've watched Legally Blonde more than twice in the past week. We see you. You know Netflix keeps track of your viewing history, right? Same goes for that episode of Suits where Rachel gets the 172. Some pop cultural inspiration is a good thing! But if you're OD'ing on those rare mentions of the LSAT in TV/movies, you're probably overdoing it on the LSAT.

 

10. You dread studying. This is the most serious sign that it's time to take a break. You're toasted. Crisped. Burnt out, through and through. Time to get back to life and remember why you're doing this in the first place—to live a life spent pursuing your dreams! And those dreams don't stop with the LSAT. The LSAT is just a gateway into your future and this season will likely be over sooner than you think.

 

 

Images taken from Imgur (The 50 reaction/funny gifs you didn't know you needed), WiffleGif, and Giphy.
Featured image: Henry Smith

Comment on this

For this final installment of LSAT Final Stretch leading up to the June exam, we've asked some of our Mentors and Sages for any final words of encouragement for those of you taking the exam (or looking forward to future administrations).

Mentor Sam: "You got this!" "You're almost there!" "Last minute advice: Stay focused and do your best. You've come this far, and you're only a few steps away from the finish line.”

Mentor Nilesh, Georgetown University Law Center '18: “I know it can seem impossible... but never give up hope. Logic Games only clicked definitively for me in the last week after a year and a half of prep and even more so in the last 4 days...keep working...and do not give up!”

Mentor Josh: “The LSAT doesn't happen in a testing room on test day. It happens the months and years before test day. It happens during core curriculum as we slog through the information and slowly achieve mastery. It happens during drilling as we reinforce and solidify that mastery. It happens during PTs and JY videos and fool proofing games; and during the times when we inevitably get knocked down, when a bad PT shakes us, when we realize we have further to go than we thought; and it happens when we get back up and keep fighting. So what is test day? It is not the LSAT. You have already conquered the LSAT. Test day is simply the dropping of your score in the mail. Y'all got this.”

Mentor Alejandro: “Trust your instincts. Find serenity in the fact that you studied your hardest up until this point. Oh and don't be afraid to skip!”

Mentor Brittany: “Good luck on the test everyone!! We did all the hard work already!!! Let's go crush this thing!!!”

Sage Allison, Harvard Law School '19: “You've already put in so many hours on this test. In a real sense, the hard work is behind you. June 6th is your opportunity to demonstrate your understanding of the LSAT, and regardless of your nerves, you are equipped. You can do this!”

Featured image: ogungo

Comment on this

When to Withdraw

If you’re confident that you have not reached your LSAT potential or still have major milestones to overcome in your LSAT journey, then withdraw from the test.

Never, ever, ever waste a take. Many of us here who have LSAT success stories needed all three of our takes to get to the triumphant chapter. Assume that you will likely be in the same situation.

To put things in more concrete terms: take the average of your last 3 PT scores. If this score is more than 3 points below your minimum goal score, you should think about withdrawing.

If you’re seriously ill, have had recent personal drama (not related to the LSAT), or have major life changes going on (particularly that are out of your control), also consider that you might be better off withdrawing. We have heard many stories of folks who decided to take the test instead of respecting the realities of personal upheaval. Few of those stories had happy endings, and most of those folks wished they’d taken a step back from the LSAT at that time.

Do not take the test "just to see how it goes." Do not take the test "just to get experience." Only take the LSAT when you are good and ready.

When to Cancel Your Score

Fact: Everyone feels awful after they take the test. Expect that you will too. The worst thing for you to do is to obsess over all of the questions you weren’t sure about or how you could have diagrammed that game more effectively. And don't discuss the test with anyone else—both to preserve the integrity of the administration per LSAC's guidelines, and to preserve your sanity. It’s over, and you did your best.

It’s important to say that up front, because feeling icky after that test is not a reasonable grounds for cancelling your score.

There are three conditions that warrant score cancellation, and only three.

  • You are certain you had a bubbling error from which you were not able to recover. For instance, realizing that you started bubbling at #2 and were therefore one off for every answer in that section. If you are certain that this happened, then you should cancel your score.
  • You had a medical emergency during the test, such as: an asthma attack, seizure, blackout, full-blown panic attack, etc. This list of conditions sounds extreme, because you should only cancel your score if something truly extreme happened.
  • You had to leave the testing room for any reason and were not done with the section. If this happened for any reason, then this may be an serious enough condition for you to cancel you score.

Again, please note that feeling bad about how you did is not grounds to cancel your score.

How to Know You’re Ready

A combination of these three conditions is necessary for you to go forth and conquer this upcoming LSAT:

  • Your PT average is within 3 points of your goal score
  • You’ve done due diligence in your prep and have not neglected any major difficulty
  • You do not meet any of the criteria noted in the “withdraw” section above

You may not feel perfectly ready. Almost no one does! But if you’ve done your part and your performance indicates readiness, then let us be the first to say: YOU GOT THIS.

Featured image: Barney Moss

Comment on this

For those of you taking the upcoming June administration of the LSAT or thinking ahead to future administrations, we'd like to share a few best practices/pro-tips to help ensure that you're in top shape heading into the exam. We've included some guidance for the week leading up to the exam as well as for Game Day itself.

Right up front, we'd like to say that you're not going to learn anything new the week before the exam. The hay is in the barn. You've already done the work that will carry you into the exam. Don't cram PT's; at most, do a few sections to keep your mechanics sharp. You need to make sure that you're fresh and in the right mindset for Game Day.

1) Between today and Sunday, go to bed and wake up at the same time every day (and this should be the same time you'll need to wake up for the June exam). Waking up ~3 hours before the earliest time you're likely to start the test (as soon as 30 minutes after the show-up time) will help ensure that your cortisol levels are up and that you're fully awake. Waking up at this time during this week and Monday June 6th helps to ensure that you'll be tired enough to go to bed Sunday night. Also, no screens/blue light after 10pm. This will help ensure that you're not artificially stimulating cortisol (waking yourself up) before bed.

2) Pre-hydrate. Drink a 3-4 liters of water every day of the week before the test. It's really not that big of a deal to drink that much water, and doing so will ensure that you are well hydrated the morning of without having to drink much (if any) liquid.

3) Practice your game day routine at least twice. This means wake up at the time you'll wake up on Monday, eat the exact same breakfast/lunch you plan for game day. Keep track of what you eat and drink and when you do it. Track your hunger, thirst, and bathroom need levels (just like in The Sims). Pro-tip: if you need to go at 2PM, there's a very strong likelihood that if you follow the same plan/timing, you will need to go in the middle of a section. Which is what we want to avoid. 

4) Day of, general: Don't do anything differently from your dress rehearsals. No magic pills. No extra coffee. No tricks. No surprises. Perhaps get to the test center early and just go for a walk around the grounds if feasible. You might see some very nervous folks in crisis mode. Disregard. You are not them.

5) Day of, warm up: Whatever you do, don't score anything. And don't do any new material. Maybe take a handful of LR Q's, maybe one easy game, maybe one easy RC. Just chill out about it. You're just warming up your mechanics. 

6) Day of, during the break: People will try to talk to you because they are nervous or want reassurance. You are not there to be anyone's friend. You are not there to be anyone's therapist or life coach. However you put up your personal "Do Not Disturb" status—just don't let anyone throw you off your game.

Featured image: Tomasz Dunn

Comment on this

Not sure what all those letters and arrows are that people draw for the LSAT? Watch this video on Sufficient and Necessary Conditions, fundamental to LSAT Logic.

5s
5s
0.8x
1.0x
1.2x
1.4x
1.7x
2.0x
2.4x
3.0x

Drawing LSAT Sufficient And Necessary Conditions

LSAT Penguin Logic

This doesn't involve logical arrows, but it's funny.

You've probably heard a lot about sufficient and necessary conditions on the LSAT. They're tough to get a handle on at first, but not that difficult once you get the hang of it.

A sufficient condition is "enough" to tell you that something else is true. Suppose I tell you that a CEO of a fortune 500 company is powerful.

Then if I tell you that Tim Cook is CEO of Apple, a fortune 500 company, you know something. Tim Cook is powerful.

A necessary condition is something that has to be true, when something else is true. "Powerful" is the necessary condition of the statement I just told you. If you find out that Marissa Mayer is CEO of Yahoo, then you know she is necessarily powerful. It can't be any other way.

A conditional statement has a sufficient and a necessary condition. A conditional statement is true 100% of the time.

So if I tell you that all Fortune 500 CEOs are powerful, don't look for an exception. Just assume that it's true. This isn't a good idea in real life, but it's what you have to do for the LSAT.

Drawing LSAT Conditional Statements With Arrows

It's complicated to try to keep track of several conditional statements. And LSAT logical reasoning questions often give you several conditional statements. So you should use a system of shorthand notation to represent them.

The system everyone has settled on has letters and arrows. Take the statement I gave above. Here's a good way to draw it:

C --> P

I prefer to stick to one letter, or two at most. Some people will try to add more letters, like this:

CEOF500 --> Pow

That quickly gets confusing. The letters should serve as a reminder of the statement, but they don't have to mirror every part of it.

Joining Conditional Statements To Form Deductions

If you have multiple conditional statements, you can often join them. Anytime the necessary condition of one statement matches the sufficient condition of another, you can put them together.

example: 

"Every CEO of a fortune 500 company is powerful."

"Everyone powerful is a little arrogant"

C --> P

P --> A

C --> P --> A

"Every CEO of a fortune 500 company is a little arrogant"

You could also draw this as C --> P --> LA, if you prefer to include the "little" in the statement about "arrogant".

Did you like this lesson on LSAT conditional statement diagramming? If so, you'll enjoy our online LSAT course, which has complete lessons on LSAT logic, applied to real LSAT questions.

Featured image: Steven Depolo

Comment on this

[This is a lesson excerpt from our online LSAT course, for which we invite you to enroll.]

19 common, repeated argument flaws that students overlook on Logical Reasoning

Note: This list is not meant to be exhaustive. It is simply meant to be a guide to the more common argument flaws the LSAT tends to exploit.

1. Attacking the source of the argument

To attack an argument you may attack:
1) the premises (which never happens on the LSAT); or
2) the support the premises give to the conclusion

What you DO NOT get to do is to attack the author, his past acts or arguments, his motivation, where the argument comes from, or anything other than (1) or (2).

2. Uses terms unclearly/equivocation

The author uses a term (with more than one meaning) inconsistently.  For example, “public interest” in one sense means what is in the best interest of the public (e.g., clean air, roads, schools).  In another sense, it means what the public is interested in (e.g, celebrity gossip).  The shift in word meaning will often be subtle and hard to notice.

3. Analogies that really aren’t analogous enough

All arguments by analogy fall apart at some point.  At some point the two things being analogized lose their relevant similarities and the analogy cannot continue.  We can say attacking the LSAT questions is like attacking enemy starships.  But, in many ways, it’s not.

4. Appealing to authority in an area outside their expertise

Appealing to an authority where the subject matter is outside the expertise of the authority. For example, a dentist’s opinions on automotive maintenance is not authoritative.

5. Causation confusions

Whenever the LSAT concludes or assumes that A causes B, 99.9% of the time it’s wrong. They’ll tell you A is correlated with B or that A coincided with B and therefore A caused B.  Maybe.  That’s just one possible explanation for the correlation. Here are the other 3 possible explanations:
1) B caused A
2) C caused both A and B
3) A and B are merely coincidentally correlated and really something else, X, caused B.  We see this a lot with accident rate and speed sign questions.  New speed limit sign was put up!  Accident rates drop!  Therefore, it must be that the new speed limit sign dropped the accident rate.  Maybe.  But maybe there was an increase in cop cars patrolling the area and that’s what actually caused the drop in accident rates.  The speed limit sign was just coincidentally there.

6. Circular reasoning

Assuming what you’re trying to prove.  The premise is a mere restatement of the conclusion.

“Everything I say is true. This is true because I said it, and everything I say is true.”

7. Confusing necessary and sufficient conditions

The oldest trick in the book.

8. False dichotomy

A false dichotomy only pretends to divide the universe into two binary halves.  It is not a real contradiction.  Consider this real contradiction: cats and non-cats.  That’s cleanly cuts the universe into two halves.  Garfield?  Cat.  Einstein, MacBook Pro, Love? Non-cat.  Here’s a false dichotomy: Cats and dogs.  See how that leaves out Einstein, MacBook Pro, and Love?  They are neither cats nor dogs.

9. Confusing probability for certainty

Could be is not must be. Even if something is 99.99% likely to happen, it does not mean that it will happen.

10. Confusing is for ought

Don’t confuse the descriptive for the prescriptive.  Descriptive simply describes the state of the world.  The tree is small.  The lake is murky.  Prescriptive reveals values.  The tree ought to be big.  The lake should be clear.   The prescriptive reveals what we care about.  You will typically encounter a descriptive premise leading to a prescriptive conclusion.  For example, the house is on fire therefore we should put the fire out.  That’s not a good argument.  There are a number of reasons why we wouldn’t want to put the fire out.  We always need a bridge premise to take us from the descriptive world of the premises to the prescriptive world of the conclusion.  The bridge in the example argument above would be: Houses that are on fire ought to have their fires put out.

11. Percentages v. quantity

Percentages don’t necessarily reveal quantity and vice versa.

For example, Group A wants a 10% raise and Group B wants a 50% raise. Who will earn more money afterward? Who is asking for more money? We have no way to know based on this information.

12. Surveys and samplings to reach a general conclusion

Remember that surveys and samplings must be random (that is, non-biased). Asking a group of 20 year olds about who they are voting for will only tell you who 20 year olds are voting for (assuming they’re a statistically random set of 20 year olds regarding race, gender, etc.), not who the entire country will vote for.

13. Hasty generalization

Hasty generalization is very similar to sampling error. The difference is that the conclusion is very broad. You cannot make a generalization based on small sample size or based on one or two incidents.

14. Experiments to reach a general conclusion

Experiments to reach a general conclusion must include a control group.  It must also establish the baseline of what is measured before the experiment begins.

15. Your argument fails therefore the opposite of your conclusion must be true

Be careful of arguments that try to do this.  Just because you’ve wrecked someone’s argument, doesn’t mean that you get to conclude the opposite of his conclusion.  If I make a crappy argument for going to the movies tonight as opposed to going to a bar or doing any number of things, you can’t just show me why my argument sucks and conclude: therefore we should go to a bar. First of all, there could be other arguments made to support going to the movies.  Additionally, you still have the burden of making an argument that proves that we should go to the bar.

16. Relative v. absolute

A is faster than B, therefore A is fast? Not necessarily so. A is faster than B in relative terms. It doesn’t imply that A is fast in the absolute sense. For example, we know that the conclusion in this statement is not true: “Hippopotamuses are smaller than an elephants. Therefore, hippopotamuses are small.” Or take this statement: “Turtles are faster than ants. Therefore, turtles are fast.”

17. Confusing one possible solution for the only solution

There are many ways to solve a problem. Just because one solution solves a problem doesn’t mean that particular solution is the only solution that can solve the problem. Nor, for that matter, does it mean it is the best solution. If I nuke Cleveland, I’ll probably solve Cleveland’s homeless problem. This does not make it a good solution.

This flaw can also be used in the negative. This happens when one solution to a problem turns out not solve the problem, and then the conclusion might say that the problem cannot be solved or that the problem shouldn’t be solved. The flaw remains: just because one solution to a problem is inadequate doesn’t mean that the problem itself cannot be solved.

18. Red herring

This happens when the argument doesn’t address the relevant issue.  Rather, it addresses some other issue that is tangential or has nothing to do with the relevant issue but, for some reason, commands your attention.

19. Tradition fallacy and novelty fallacy

The fact that something is old doesn’t mean that it is right or better. In the same vein, just because things have been done a certain way for a long time doesn’t mean that it is right or better. See slavery.

Likewise, just because something is new doesn’t entail that it is best course of action. Nor does it entail that the old thing or idea is no longer relevant or true. Change for the sake of change is not an argument; there must be something that shows the change is better.

--------------

Did you like this list of common LSAT argument flaws? You'll find more information like this in our online LSAT course, along with walkthroughs of hundreds of flawed LSAT arguments.

Featured image: square credit kevin dooley

2 comments