Can someone give me a scenario of a flaw that looks like this?

lady macbeth

One that, "appeals to a premise one would accept only if one already accepted the truth of the conclusion." I know there is a circularity in it, but can someone give an example, in non-abstract lsat language for me? That would be amazing lol thanks!!!!!!!

Tonyk215

@"lady macbeth" said:
One that, "appeals to a premise one would accept only if one already accepted the truth of the conclusion." I know there is a circularity in it, but can someone give an example, in non-abstract lsat language for me? That would be amazing lol thanks!!!!!!!

You cant get a 180 on the lsat unless you study. Thus, if you get a 180 on the lsat you must study.

Louislepauvre

Senator: Since the bill does not have enough votes to pass, you shouldn’t vote for it.

keets993

Jessica was not successful on the LSAT, so she must not have studied. That is because you cannot be successful on the LSAT unless you study. This proves that when a person does not succeed on the lsat, it must mean that they did not study.

There's a phenomenon, which is explained by the conditional. The conditional is then used to support the conclusion, which is the conditional.

goingfor99th

This describes a circular reasoning flaw, right? Can I have PT, section, #? I'm intrigued.

lady macbeth

@goingfor99th said:
This describes a circular reasoning flaw, right? Can I have PT, section, #? I'm intrigued.

I think so. I feel like it's not as common as the other flaw types which is why I have a little trouble with it. PT 49 S2 Q23 could be an example.

goingfor99th

@"lady macbeth" said:

@goingfor99th said:
This describes a circular reasoning flaw, right? Can I have PT, section, #? I'm intrigued.

I think so. I feel like it's not as common as the other flaw types which is why I have a little trouble with it. PT 49 S2 Q23 could be an example.

Yeah, so it's basically like the conclusion is a restatement of the premises. So, the premises taken together say the same thing as the conclusion, but the two parts are worded very differently so as to allay suspicion that there is a logical flaw present.

Conclusion: Human behavior requires inquiry into nonphysical aspects of people in order to be fully understood.

Premise 1: Suppose we know every possible physical thing about humans.
Premise 2: Despite this, we still obviously could not fully understand human behavior.

I think the 'obviously' is a good indicator word in this instance. I see it as an exaggeration for effect, which typically indicates weakness in an argument.