Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

General Flaws Question

motunrayobbmartinsmotunrayobbmartins Core Member
edited February 2021 in Logical Reasoning 50 karma

help would there be a circular reasoning flaw if a stimulus presents 2 premises, 1 that repeats the conclusion, and another that does not repeat the premise but has a separate flaw.

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • FaviPapi-1-1FaviPapi-1-1 Member
    313 karma

    Theoretically, yes: that could happen... As you may know, an argument can have multiple flaws. However, I think I need to see a question that describes such an argument. The more I think about it, the more I go against my answer above! Hahaha

  • motunrayobbmartinsmotunrayobbmartins Core Member
    50 karma

    @FaviPapi okay, so if a stimulus mentioned: Anna believes that cats are scary. Her belief is correct, because of how scary cats are. Also, she had a traumatic event as a child in which a cat bit her severely.
    The idea of a circular argument is repeating the premise. However, what if like here, the author also presented another premise that actually works. Would that still be the flaw? Does this make sense :(

  • kkole444kkole444 Alum Member ⭐
    1687 karma

    Hello @motunrayobbmartins Yes I think that would constitute the flaw. the LSAT could ask that and it could be the correct (supporting the conclusion with a premise that restates the conclusion) answer, however, on the LSAT it is usually explicit when they employ that flaw. The LSAT has given 2+ premises on other question types but only decided to 'use' or implicate one for the correct answer choice. I have seen that in SA/NA and MBT/MBF and Strengthen questions.

Sign In or Register to comment.