“Presupposes as evidence..”

Comments

• 2 Likes

  keets993 Alum Member ⭐ ⏰ 🍌

  May 2018 6050 karma

  Hey there,

  That's an example of circular reasoning. It's good you're trying to familiarize yourself with it since it's one of the most common flawed argument types out there. I had the pleasure (?) of coming across a couple of these types recently, so if you want I can direct you to a couple actual LSAT examples from the earlier PT's.

  Here is a different types of example:

  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.

  The author (me) is assuming my conclusion (that you cannot be successful on the LSAT unless you study) as evidence for my conclusion (you cannot be successful on the LSAT unless you study). I think the trick with the wording of “presupposes as evidence the conclusion it is trying to establish” is that it sounds like the author could just be assuming some evidence for the conclusion. But the key here is “presupposes as evidence the conclusion it is trying to establish," it referring to the conclusion. Assuming the conclusion as evidence of the conclusion.

  Hope that helps!
• 1 Like

  Return On Inference Alum Member

  May 2018 503 karma

  PT36 S1 Q10 is an example of a circular reasoning flaw question.

  Essentially, the conclusion of the argument is restated as one of the premises.
• CurlyQQQ Alum Member

  July 2018 edited July 2018 295 karma

  Can someone translate this to Lawgic? Incredibly helpful btw!!
• 2 Likes

  keets993 Alum Member ⭐ ⏰ 🍌

  July 2018 edited July 2018 6050 karma

  @CurlyQQQ the lawgic is generally:

  A -> B

  ---

  A -> B

  The way the writers cleverly disguise this flaw is through grammar.