Thought this might be helpful! I know I'm definitely a written/visual learner:
10 FLAWS TO KNOW:
Misdirected Response =when the author or a second speaker responds to an argument the other person never actually made; the response aims for the wrong target
LSAT Answer Ex: "Is directed toward disproving a claim that was not made"
False Dichotomy = when you think you're limited to two options even though there might be other ones available
LSAT Answer Ex: "Assumes without warrant that a situation allows only two possibilities"
Confusing a Mental State with Reality = when you mix up a fact about the world with someone's belief or intention (what's happening in their mind); or the other way around
LSAT Answer Ex: "Assumes that because an action was followed by a change, the action was undertaken for the purpose of bringing about that change"
Confusing a Lack of Support with a False Conclusion= when you think knocking down someone's argument proves that their conclusion is wrong; this is a flaw because the conclusion can still stand, even if you take away it's support
LSAT Answer Ex: "Rejects a position on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been made for it"
Attacking the Source = when you attack the person that holds a view rather than the view itself; whether someone is biased or hypocritical doesn't affect whether their view is true
LSAT Answer Ex: "Attacks the proponent of a claim rather than the merits of the claim"
Overlooking Factors = happens when you base a judgement on only some of the factors that matter; weighing a cost or benefit but ignoring the other side, or fixating on one effect while ignoring the ones that push the other way
LSAT Answer Ex: "Fails to consider that the benefits to be gained might outweigh the costs"
Part vs. Whole = when you assume that something true about individual components of a thing must also be true about the whole thing (or the other way around)
LSAT Answer Ex: "Assumes that because something is true of each of the parts of a whole, it is true of the whole itself"
Unrepresentative Sample= when you generalize about a group based on a slice of it that's skewed in a relevant way
LSAT Answer Ex: "The argument draws a conclusion about a population from observations of a subgroup that is quite likely to be unrepresentative of that population in certain relevant respects"
Assuming Cause From Correlation = happens when you think that the fact two things tend to show up together proves that one thing must have caused the other; there could be other explanations for why the two things show up together (ex. third factor that causes both, or causal direction is reversed)
LSAT Answer Ex: "Illicitly infers a cause from a correlation"
Confusing Sufficient and Necessary Conditions = happens when you think something that guarantees another thing is absolutely required for that thing (or the other way around)
LSAT Answer Ex: "Takes a sufficient condition as a necessary one"
This was so helpful and I feel like im able to grasp flaw questions better now. When I first worked through this module I could barely spot any flaws :(
When speaker or second person responds to an argument the other person didn't actually make
aims for wrong target
Marcia: Not all vegetarian diets lead to nutritional deficiencies. Research shows that vegetarians can obtain a full complement of proteins and minerals from non-animal foods
Theodora: You are wrong in claiming that vegetarianism cannot lead to nutritional deficiencies. If most people became vegetarians, some of those losing jobs due to the collapse of many meat-based industries would fall into poverty and hence be unable to afford a nutritionally adequate diet.
Theodora's reply to Marcia's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that her reply...
is directed toward disproving a claim that Marcia did not make
False Dichotomy
When you think you're limited to only 2 options when there might be other ones available
We need to increase our profits the next fiscal year, or else we'll go bankrupt. One way to do this is to cut back on employee benefits and other perks across our entire restaurant chain. Another way is to close down. unprofitable locations and lay off the employees who work there. So no matter what, in order to avoid bankruptcy, some of our employees will be negatively impacted.
The argument's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...
assumes without warrant that a situation only allows two possibilities
Confusing a Mental State with Reality
When you mix up a fact about the world with someone's belief or intention (what's happening in their mind), or the other way around
Last year, Professor O'Brien banned laptops from her class and announced she would start grading on a forced curve. Although her class used to be one of the most popular, those changes led students this year to avoid her class. Professor O'Brien must have changed her policies to drive students away and decrease her workload.
The argument's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...
assumes that because an action was followed by a change, the action was undertaken for the purpose of bringing about that change
Confusing Lack of Support with False Conclusion
When you think knocking down someone's argument proves that their conclusion is wrong
a conclusion can still stand, even if you take away its support
An art historian argues that because 15th century European paintings were generally more planimetric (that is, two-dimensional with no attempt at suggesting depth), than were 16th century paintings, 15th century European painters did not have a greater mastery of painting, for the degree for which a painting is planimetric is irrelevant to the painter's mastery.
the argument is flawed in that it...
rejects a position on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been made for it
Attacking the Source
When you attack the person that holds the view instead of the view itself
a person's character doesn't necessarily affect whether their view is true
Students assert that allowing them to use AI to write their essays will give them valuable experience using tools that employers value. But this is obviously self-serving, since students are lazy and won't have to do so much homework if AI is allowed to write their essays. So we shouldn't take their claim seriously.
The argument is flawed in that it...
attacks the proponent of a claim rather than the merits of the claim
Overlooking Factors
When you base a judgement on only SOME of the factors that matter
fixating on one effect while ignoring the ones that push the other way
Union Member: Some members of our labor union are calling for an immediate strike. But a strike would cut into our strike fund and would in addition lead to a steep fine, causing us to suffer a major financial loss. Therefore, we must not strike now.
The union member's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...
fails to consider that the benefits to be gained from a strike might outweigh the costs
Part v. Whole
when you assume something that true about individual components of a thing must also be true about the whole thing...or vice versa
Every note in the melody Chang composed is one of the twelve standard pitches found in any beginner's music book. Since no individual note is distinctive, the melody itself cannot be distinctive.
The argument's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...
assumes that because something is true of each of the parts of a whole, it is true of the whole itself
Unrepresented Sample
When you generalize about a group based on a slice of it that's skewed in a relevant way
A non-profit organization concerned with a social issue sent out a fundraising letter to 5,000 people. The letter was accompanied by a survey soliciting recipients' opinions. Of the 300 responses, 283 indicated in the survey that they agreed with the organization's position on the social issue. This suggests that most of the 5,000 people to whom the letter was sent agreed with that position.
The argument's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...
draws a conclusion about a population from observations of a subgroup that is quite likely to be unrepresentative of that population in certain relevant respects
Assuming Cause from Correlation
When you think the fact two things tend to show up together proves that one thing must CAUSE the other
could be other explanations for why such two things show up together
The proportion of fat calories in the diets of people who read the nutrition labels on food products is significantly lower than it is in the diets of people who do not read nutrition labels. This shows that reading these labels promotes healthier dietary behavior.
The argument's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...
illicitly infers a cause from a correlation
Confusing Sufficient and Necessary Conditions
When you think something that guarantees a thing is absolutely required for that thing
Or when you think something that's absolutely required for a thing is guaranteed by a thing
If a literary work belongs to the Romantic tradition, it will privilege emotion over reason. Whitmer's recently rediscovered novella unmistakably privileges emotion over reason. Therefore, the novella belongs to the Romantic tradition.
The argument's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...
Hello Everyone, I have found it very helpful over the last few days to play the game Flaw Hunters. This can be found on both the mobile version and desktop version of 7 sage. Throughout my day at college I will play it pretty normally, and I can say it's made my ability to get flaw questions right skyrocket. Hope you all take this tip and use it if you struggle with flaw questions.
Hello it's me from the future. Just a PSA to all future students because I didn't know this at the time and idk if it was obvious back then but these 10 flaws don't just apply to the Flaw question type. It's also applicable to other question types that are part of the "Argument Family" (ex: Strengthen, Weaken, SA, NA, etc).
This is when the Author or a second speaker responds to an argument the other person never actually made. The response essentially aims for the wrong target.
Example:
“Pat: I think we should cancel some of our streaming …..subscriptions to save money”
“Sam: So you want us to have no entertainment at all?”
This is a Ridiculous argumenty, Pat Never said cancel all of them. she said cancel some.
False Dichotomy
The most common version of this is when you think you're limited to two options, even though there might be otheres one available.
“Pat: I don't think we should order delivery again tonight”
“Sam: Agreed. So we’ll have to eat out today”
Sam is overlooking something like cooking a healthy meal at home or many other options, that's why Sam's response just isn't persuasive.
Confusing a Mental State with a Reality
This happens when you mix up a fact about the world, with someone's belief or intention, of what's happening in their mind, or the other way around.
“Pat: My old roommate just walked past me and didn't say anything. why ………is she trying to avoid me?”
“Sam: “Are you sure she saw you ?”
Just because the ex roommate didn't acknowledge her, doesn't mean she intended to do that. We don't know what the old roommate was thinking or even doing, we don't know if she had the intention to avoid her.
Confusing lack of support with false conclusion
The most common version of this is when you think knocking down somebody's argument proves their conclusion is wrong. That's a flaw because the conclusion can still stand even if you take away its support.
“Pat: You should drive carefully, since you're a Gemini and Mercury is ………moving retrograde.”
“Sam: Astrology has been debunked. And besides, I'm a Scorpio. so I don't .. .. .. .. need to drive carefully.
Sam's response just is not persuasive. she knocked down pat support, but that doesn't mean her conclusion is wrong. Maybe Sam still should drive carefully for other reasons besides astrology.
Attacking the Source
This happens when you attack the person that holds a view, rather than the view itself. That is a flaw because whether someone's biased or hypocritical or has a bad character, doesn't affect whether their view is true.
“Pat: Want to buy my coffee table? It was Handmade by a master … ….. …… ..Craftsman in Japan.”
“Sam: Stop lying you just want to make money on your old furniture”
Sure it's true Pat has financial interest in saying what he said, but that does not prove what he said is wrong. Maybe it really was made by a master Craftsman in Japan. So it was attacking the proponents rather than the merits of the claim
Overlooking Factories
The most common version of this happens when you base a judgment on only some of the facts that matter. weighing a cost or benefit but ignoring the other side, or fixating on one effect while ignoring the one that pushes the other way.
“Pat: I got the job, but it pays less than I wanted and requires 5 days in .. … .. ..person.
“Sam: Obviously you shouldn't take it”
But we only have two cons, the pay, the in person requirement. but what if the job provides connections, valuable experience, or what if it's just fun? Sam ignores the possibility that reasons in favor of taking the job could outweigh the reasons against taking it.
Part vs Whole
This happens when you assume that something true about individual components of a thing,.. must also be true about the whole thing, or the other way around.
“Pat: Ice cream is delicious. I also really like sushi, ranch dressing, and ……...pickles.
“Sam: Perfect. You'll love the ice cream Sushi Ranch pickle smoothie I ………made.”
Ingredients that are great on their own can be vomit-inducing combined. What's true about each part doesn't have to be true about the whole. and it wouldn't be a persuasive argument the other way around either. if the Smoothie tastes terrible that wouldn't mean that each of the ingredients also has to taste bad.
Unrepresentative Sample
This happens when you generalize about a group based on a slice of it that is skewed in a relevant way.
“Pat: I saw 100 students on the quad protesting about endangered ……..beetles”
“Sam: Just goes to show the typical college students care way too much ……….about the environment”
These students at the protest are just a slice of the overall student body. and since they're at the protest, they're probably more likely than others to care about the environment. Sam's generalizing about the typical student based on unrepresentative samples.
Assuming cause from correlation
This happens when you think the fact two things tend to show up together proves that one thing must cause the other. That's a flaw because there could be other explanations for why the two things show up together. Maybe there is a third factor that causes both. Or maybe the causal direction is reversed.
“Pat: People who run for Student Government positions seem to have an ……...easier time getting internships in the summer”
“Sam: We should run next year to increase our chances of getting an ……….internship”
Pat had only pointed out a correlation between “ running for the position” and “chances of an internship.” but Sam thinks that this shows running for the position actually causes better chances. That's a huge assumption. What if people who are more charismatic or better interviewers or more likely to run for Student Government positions? and it's these personality traits and skills that also make them more likely to secure an internship. The student government position itself might have no causal impact at all. That's why Sam's response just doesn't hold up
He illicitly Infer as a cause from a correlation
Confusing Sufficient for Necessary
This is the number one flaw. This happens when you think something that guarantees another thing, is absolutely required for that thing or the other way around.
“Pat: Every team that wins their division advances to the playoffs”
“Sam: since the Yankees were in the playoffs, they must have Wonder ……divisions, right?
Winning their division guarantees that a team gets to the playoffs. but that doesn't mean a team needs to win their division to advance. Maybe it can advance through another path, such as having the best record outside of the division winners. That's why Sam's argument is flawed. He thinks winning the division is necessary in order to make the playoffs, when it's actually just one path that's sufficient to make the playoffs.
36 comments
Thought this might be helpful! I know I'm definitely a written/visual learner:
10 FLAWS TO KNOW:
Misdirected Response = when the author or a second speaker responds to an argument the other person never actually made; the response aims for the wrong target
LSAT Answer Ex: "Is directed toward disproving a claim that was not made"
False Dichotomy = when you think you're limited to two options even though there might be other ones available
LSAT Answer Ex: "Assumes without warrant that a situation allows only two possibilities"
Confusing a Mental State with Reality = when you mix up a fact about the world with someone's belief or intention (what's happening in their mind); or the other way around
LSAT Answer Ex: "Assumes that because an action was followed by a change, the action was undertaken for the purpose of bringing about that change"
Confusing a Lack of Support with a False Conclusion = when you think knocking down someone's argument proves that their conclusion is wrong; this is a flaw because the conclusion can still stand, even if you take away it's support
LSAT Answer Ex: "Rejects a position on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been made for it"
Attacking the Source = when you attack the person that holds a view rather than the view itself; whether someone is biased or hypocritical doesn't affect whether their view is true
LSAT Answer Ex: "Attacks the proponent of a claim rather than the merits of the claim"
Overlooking Factors = happens when you base a judgement on only some of the factors that matter; weighing a cost or benefit but ignoring the other side, or fixating on one effect while ignoring the ones that push the other way
LSAT Answer Ex: "Fails to consider that the benefits to be gained might outweigh the costs"
Part vs. Whole = when you assume that something true about individual components of a thing must also be true about the whole thing (or the other way around)
LSAT Answer Ex: "Assumes that because something is true of each of the parts of a whole, it is true of the whole itself"
Unrepresentative Sample = when you generalize about a group based on a slice of it that's skewed in a relevant way
LSAT Answer Ex: "The argument draws a conclusion about a population from observations of a subgroup that is quite likely to be unrepresentative of that population in certain relevant respects"
Assuming Cause From Correlation = happens when you think that the fact two things tend to show up together proves that one thing must have caused the other; there could be other explanations for why the two things show up together (ex. third factor that causes both, or causal direction is reversed)
LSAT Answer Ex: "Illicitly infers a cause from a correlation"
Confusing Sufficient and Necessary Conditions = happens when you think something that guarantees another thing is absolutely required for that thing (or the other way around)
LSAT Answer Ex: "Takes a sufficient condition as a necessary one"
@Hannah12FJcm Bless you!
@Hannah12FJcm love you mate
ily
u da bomb fr
Made into a Google Doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FXQM5IwIHRRCelP4oseMRNZKSCtXVSj6uQlDmZXWgtI/edit?usp=sharing
Sam, I need you to lock in.
@hjr210400 I fear he's not locked
@hjr210400 Pat and Sam stress me outtt
"Confusing a mental state with reality" sums up my LSAT goals
same bruu
This was so helpful and I feel like im able to grasp flaw questions better now. When I first worked through this module I could barely spot any flaws :(
is there a pdf of these?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FXQM5IwIHRRCelP4oseMRNZKSCtXVSj6uQlDmZXWgtI/edit?usp=sharing
Awesome
Mental State v. Reality Example:
Pat: My former roommate walked past me without saying anything. Why are they trying to avoid me?
Sam: ....Bro, he's literally blind.
whos taking the lsat in nov???
I remember when I went dumpster diving with these two guys, and afterward we went to a Yankees game. Good times.
sam is an asshole
heh first :P
Here's the gist:
Misdirected Responsexb
When speaker or second person responds to an argument the other person didn't actually make
aims for wrong target
Marcia: Not all vegetarian diets lead to nutritional deficiencies. Research shows that vegetarians can obtain a full complement of proteins and minerals from non-animal foods
Theodora: You are wrong in claiming that vegetarianism cannot lead to nutritional deficiencies. If most people became vegetarians, some of those losing jobs due to the collapse of many meat-based industries would fall into poverty and hence be unable to afford a nutritionally adequate diet.
Theodora's reply to Marcia's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that her reply...
is directed toward disproving a claim that Marcia did not make
False Dichotomy
When you think you're limited to only 2 options when there might be other ones available
We need to increase our profits the next fiscal year, or else we'll go bankrupt. One way to do this is to cut back on employee benefits and other perks across our entire restaurant chain. Another way is to close down. unprofitable locations and lay off the employees who work there. So no matter what, in order to avoid bankruptcy, some of our employees will be negatively impacted.
The argument's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...
assumes without warrant that a situation only allows two possibilities
Confusing a Mental State with Reality
When you mix up a fact about the world with someone's belief or intention (what's happening in their mind), or the other way around
Last year, Professor O'Brien banned laptops from her class and announced she would start grading on a forced curve. Although her class used to be one of the most popular, those changes led students this year to avoid her class. Professor O'Brien must have changed her policies to drive students away and decrease her workload.
The argument's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...
assumes that because an action was followed by a change, the action was undertaken for the purpose of bringing about that change
Confusing Lack of Support with False Conclusion
When you think knocking down someone's argument proves that their conclusion is wrong
a conclusion can still stand, even if you take away its support
An art historian argues that because 15th century European paintings were generally more planimetric (that is, two-dimensional with no attempt at suggesting depth), than were 16th century paintings, 15th century European painters did not have a greater mastery of painting, for the degree for which a painting is planimetric is irrelevant to the painter's mastery.
the argument is flawed in that it...
rejects a position on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been made for it
Attacking the Source
When you attack the person that holds the view instead of the view itself
a person's character doesn't necessarily affect whether their view is true
Students assert that allowing them to use AI to write their essays will give them valuable experience using tools that employers value. But this is obviously self-serving, since students are lazy and won't have to do so much homework if AI is allowed to write their essays. So we shouldn't take their claim seriously.
The argument is flawed in that it...
attacks the proponent of a claim rather than the merits of the claim
Overlooking Factors
When you base a judgement on only SOME of the factors that matter
fixating on one effect while ignoring the ones that push the other way
Union Member: Some members of our labor union are calling for an immediate strike. But a strike would cut into our strike fund and would in addition lead to a steep fine, causing us to suffer a major financial loss. Therefore, we must not strike now.
The union member's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...
fails to consider that the benefits to be gained from a strike might outweigh the costs
Part v. Whole
when you assume something that true about individual components of a thing must also be true about the whole thing...or vice versa
Every note in the melody Chang composed is one of the twelve standard pitches found in any beginner's music book. Since no individual note is distinctive, the melody itself cannot be distinctive.
The argument's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...
assumes that because something is true of each of the parts of a whole, it is true of the whole itself
Unrepresented Sample
When you generalize about a group based on a slice of it that's skewed in a relevant way
A non-profit organization concerned with a social issue sent out a fundraising letter to 5,000 people. The letter was accompanied by a survey soliciting recipients' opinions. Of the 300 responses, 283 indicated in the survey that they agreed with the organization's position on the social issue. This suggests that most of the 5,000 people to whom the letter was sent agreed with that position.
The argument's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...
draws a conclusion about a population from observations of a subgroup that is quite likely to be unrepresentative of that population in certain relevant respects
Assuming Cause from Correlation
When you think the fact two things tend to show up together proves that one thing must CAUSE the other
could be other explanations for why such two things show up together
The proportion of fat calories in the diets of people who read the nutrition labels on food products is significantly lower than it is in the diets of people who do not read nutrition labels. This shows that reading these labels promotes healthier dietary behavior.
The argument's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...
illicitly infers a cause from a correlation
Confusing Sufficient and Necessary Conditions
When you think something that guarantees a thing is absolutely required for that thing
Or when you think something that's absolutely required for a thing is guaranteed by a thing
If a literary work belongs to the Romantic tradition, it will privilege emotion over reason. Whitmer's recently rediscovered novella unmistakably privileges emotion over reason. Therefore, the novella belongs to the Romantic tradition.
The argument's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...
takes a sufficient condition for a necessary one
Damn lmao at this point, what's the point of arguing? Flaw everywhere
this really helped me break it down I've been getting caught up on the practice drills for this reason
Hello Everyone, I have found it very helpful over the last few days to play the game Flaw Hunters. This can be found on both the mobile version and desktop version of 7 sage. Throughout my day at college I will play it pretty normally, and I can say it's made my ability to get flaw questions right skyrocket. Hope you all take this tip and use it if you struggle with flaw questions.
Hello it's me from the future. Just a PSA to all future students because I didn't know this at the time and idk if it was obvious back then but these 10 flaws don't just apply to the Flaw question type. It's also applicable to other question types that are part of the "Argument Family" (ex: Strengthen, Weaken, SA, NA, etc).
ice cream sushi ranch pickle smoothie 🤤
Sam you gotta stop acting like this. Don't you wanna be a lawyer some day?
Misdirected Response
This is when the Author or a second speaker responds to an argument the other person never actually made. The response essentially aims for the wrong target.
Example:
“Pat: I think we should cancel some of our streaming …..subscriptions to save money”
“Sam: So you want us to have no entertainment at all?”
This is a Ridiculous argumenty, Pat Never said cancel all of them. she said cancel some.
False Dichotomy
The most common version of this is when you think you're limited to two options, even though there might be otheres one available.
“Pat: I don't think we should order delivery again tonight”
“Sam: Agreed. So we’ll have to eat out today”
Sam is overlooking something like cooking a healthy meal at home or many other options, that's why Sam's response just isn't persuasive.
Confusing a Mental State with a Reality
This happens when you mix up a fact about the world, with someone's belief or intention, of what's happening in their mind, or the other way around.
“Pat: My old roommate just walked past me and didn't say anything. why ………is she trying to avoid me?”
“Sam: “Are you sure she saw you ?”
Just because the ex roommate didn't acknowledge her, doesn't mean she intended to do that. We don't know what the old roommate was thinking or even doing, we don't know if she had the intention to avoid her.
Confusing lack of support with false conclusion
The most common version of this is when you think knocking down somebody's argument proves their conclusion is wrong. That's a flaw because the conclusion can still stand even if you take away its support.
“Pat: You should drive carefully, since you're a Gemini and Mercury is ………moving retrograde.”
“Sam: Astrology has been debunked. And besides, I'm a Scorpio. so I don't .. .. .. .. need to drive carefully.
Sam's response just is not persuasive. she knocked down pat support, but that doesn't mean her conclusion is wrong. Maybe Sam still should drive carefully for other reasons besides astrology.
Attacking the Source
This happens when you attack the person that holds a view, rather than the view itself. That is a flaw because whether someone's biased or hypocritical or has a bad character, doesn't affect whether their view is true.
“Pat: Want to buy my coffee table? It was Handmade by a master … ….. …… ..Craftsman in Japan.”
“Sam: Stop lying you just want to make money on your old furniture”
Sure it's true Pat has financial interest in saying what he said, but that does not prove what he said is wrong. Maybe it really was made by a master Craftsman in Japan. So it was attacking the proponents rather than the merits of the claim
Overlooking Factories
The most common version of this happens when you base a judgment on only some of the facts that matter. weighing a cost or benefit but ignoring the other side, or fixating on one effect while ignoring the one that pushes the other way.
“Pat: I got the job, but it pays less than I wanted and requires 5 days in .. … .. ..person.
“Sam: Obviously you shouldn't take it”
But we only have two cons, the pay, the in person requirement. but what if the job provides connections, valuable experience, or what if it's just fun? Sam ignores the possibility that reasons in favor of taking the job could outweigh the reasons against taking it.
Part vs Whole
This happens when you assume that something true about individual components of a thing,.. must also be true about the whole thing, or the other way around.
“Pat: Ice cream is delicious. I also really like sushi, ranch dressing, and ……...pickles.
“Sam: Perfect. You'll love the ice cream Sushi Ranch pickle smoothie I ………made.”
Ingredients that are great on their own can be vomit-inducing combined. What's true about each part doesn't have to be true about the whole. and it wouldn't be a persuasive argument the other way around either. if the Smoothie tastes terrible that wouldn't mean that each of the ingredients also has to taste bad.
Unrepresentative Sample
This happens when you generalize about a group based on a slice of it that is skewed in a relevant way.
“Pat: I saw 100 students on the quad protesting about endangered ……..beetles”
“Sam: Just goes to show the typical college students care way too much ……….about the environment”
These students at the protest are just a slice of the overall student body. and since they're at the protest, they're probably more likely than others to care about the environment. Sam's generalizing about the typical student based on unrepresentative samples.
Assuming cause from correlation
This happens when you think the fact two things tend to show up together proves that one thing must cause the other. That's a flaw because there could be other explanations for why the two things show up together. Maybe there is a third factor that causes both. Or maybe the causal direction is reversed.
“Pat: People who run for Student Government positions seem to have an ……...easier time getting internships in the summer”
“Sam: We should run next year to increase our chances of getting an ……….internship”
Pat had only pointed out a correlation between “ running for the position” and “chances of an internship.” but Sam thinks that this shows running for the position actually causes better chances. That's a huge assumption. What if people who are more charismatic or better interviewers or more likely to run for Student Government positions? and it's these personality traits and skills that also make them more likely to secure an internship. The student government position itself might have no causal impact at all. That's why Sam's response just doesn't hold up
He illicitly Infer as a cause from a correlation
Confusing Sufficient for Necessary
This is the number one flaw. This happens when you think something that guarantees another thing, is absolutely required for that thing or the other way around.
“Pat: Every team that wins their division advances to the playoffs”
“Sam: since the Yankees were in the playoffs, they must have Wonder ……divisions, right?
Winning their division guarantees that a team gets to the playoffs. but that doesn't mean a team needs to win their division to advance. Maybe it can advance through another path, such as having the best record outside of the division winners. That's why Sam's argument is flawed. He thinks winning the division is necessary in order to make the playoffs, when it's actually just one path that's sufficient to make the playoffs.
i hate when people in real life misdirect their responses omg. i'll definitely remember how to solve these types on the LSAT.
Would it be detrimental to view 9 (false dichotomy) and 5 (overlooking factors) as similar and treat these questions similarly?
@JonelleMartinez yes
I would recommend The Fallacy Detective by Nathaniel and Hans Bluedorn to really brush up on flaws.
This video is really helpful!!
Kevin is the goat, I love his explanations.
go yankees
@LogicallyUnreasonable Go Rangers!