Lsat_FlawReasoning.txt

• Do not assume if one thing is true/false for past and present, it will continue to be true/flase for the future also.
• OR
• If it happened in the past it will continue to happen in the future also.

- treats the claim about what is currently the case as if it were a claim about what has been the case for future.

- uncertainly draws an inference from what has been true in the past to what will be true in the future.

• A flase analofy occurs when the author uses an analogy that is too dissimilar to the original situation to be applicable.
• ANSWER CHOICE EXAMPLE:
• - treats as similar two cases that are different in critical respect.
• - treats two kinds of things/cases that differ in improtant respect as if they do not differ.

• When the claims made by the author contradicts himself.
• EXAMPLE:
• - based on conclusion on claims that are inconsistent with each other.
• - the author makes incompatible assumptions.
• - introduces information that actually contradicts the conclusion.
• - offers in support of its conclusion pieces of evidence that are mutually contradictory.
• - some of the evidences are inconsistent with the conclusion.

As the argument progresses the uthor must use each term or concept consistent everytime.

Using a single term in different ways undermised the integrity of the argument.

• - depemding on ambiguous use of key term.
• - it confuses two different meanings of a word.
• - relies on interpretations of a key term in two different ways.
• - equivocates in respect to a central concept.
• - allow a key term to shift in meaning from one use to another.
• fails to define the term.

• A flase dilemma assumes that there are only two courses of action are possible/available, when there may be other options.
• ANSWER CHOICE:
• - flais to consider that there are other possible ways.
• - presumes, without providing justification, that there are only two possibilities.

Thsi error occurs when author attemps to attack an opponent's position by ignoring the actual statement made by the opposing speaker and instead distorts and refashions the argument, making it weaker in the process. A straw argument builds up which is easier to weaken.

• - refutes a distort version of an opposing position.
• - potrays opponent's view as more extreme that they really are.
• - distorts the proposal advocated by the opponent.

• 1. The survey used a biased sample. eg: if the induviduals are given a choice to poll, itself is biased because not everyone will reply.
• 2. Survey questions are improperly constructed. If a survey question is confusion or misleading the results will be inaccurate.
• 3. Respondent to the survey give inaccurate responses.

• - use evidence drawn from a smaple that may be well unrepresented.
• - generalize from an unrepresented sample.
• - states a generalization based on a selection that is not representative of the group that which the generalization is supported to hold true.

• annon attribute a characteristic on one person to the whole group. OR cannot attribute chracteristic of one group to every induvidual.
• Examples:
• - improperly infers it its true for one is true for everyone as a group.
• presumes it without providing justification that what is true for a group as a whole must be true for constituent parts.

• - Mis-assesing the force of the evidence.
• - Lack of evidence for a position is taken to prove that position if false.
• - Lack of evidence against a claim/argument doen not mean that its true.
• - Some evidence against a position is taken to weaken that position does not necessarily means its false similarly for suport.

• - the author cited irrelevant data.
• - draws a conclusion that is broad in scope than is warranted by the evidence advanced.
• - its irrelevant fact to justify the conclusion.
• - it fails to reach any judgement it reaches.
• it introducese information unrelated to its conclusion as evidence in support of that conclusion.
• - Overgeneralization.

• - We need to describe the mistaken negation and mistaken reversal in the logical terms.
• - must focus on the error common in both: confusing the sufficient with necessary condition or neccesaary for a sufficient condition.
• - The answer choice will use conditional reasoning statement.

• Failure to consider that cause and effect can be reversed.
• OR
• the author mistakes effect for a cause.
• - if you see a causal argument and a flaw reasoning question - use the correct answer choice will have something about causal relationship.

• Causal conclusions ane inherently flawed because there may be another explaination for the stated relationship.
• 1. Assumes a causal relationship on the basis of the sequence of events. If one thing hapns after another it does not mean that first one causes the other - its just a sequence.
• 2. Assuming a causal relationship when only a correlation exists.
• 3. Failure to consider an alternative cause or there may be an other thing causing both the cause and effect.

• The author assumes as true what is supposed to be proved.
• "this book is best because it better than all others"

- a conclusion should always come from a premise/facts, in this situation it creates a circular reference.

• - This type of flawed argument attacks the person instead of the argument they advance.
• - A speaker can never calidly attack the character or motives of a person; instead a speaker must always attac the argument advanced by the person.
• **BOTH AREA FLAWED:
• 1. focusing on a person/motive.
• 2. Focusing on the actions of the source.

• - it assumes what it seeks to establish
• - argues circularly by assuming the conclusion is true in stating the premise.
• - the argument assumes what is it attemption to demonstrate.
• - it takes for granted the very claim that it sets out to establish.
• - it offers, in place of support for its conclusion a mere resentment of that conclusion.