Identifying Flaws in Arguments

• Flaw questions test the ability to identify weak reasoning in arguments, specifically where the conclusion is not well-supported by the evidence.

Flaw Question Tasks

• Identify the logical error that causes the conclusion to be unjustified.
• Flaws may be subtle or obvious.
• Always some form of assumption, leap, or misrepresentation in reasoning.

Common Flaw Question Stems

• "Which of the following describes a flaw in the reasoning?"
• "The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that..."
• "The reasoning is questionable because..."
• "Which of the following most accurately describes a questionable technique used..."

Evaluating Answer Choices for Flaw Questions

• Determine if the answer is descriptively accurate:
• Does it correctly describe something that actually happens in the argument? If not, eliminate it, even if it sounds logical.
• Determine if the answer identifies a logical flaw in the movement from the premise(s) to the conclusion:
• Is there a reasoning problem being exposed? If not, eliminate it, even if it references part of the argument.

Flaw Question Family

• Flaw questions belong to the "Assumption family," which includes sufficient, necessary, strengthen, and weaken questions.
• All of these question types require you to analyze how the evidence relates to the conclusion.
• Also requires identifying gaps or assumptions in the reasoning.

Approaching Arguments Like a Testmaker

• When reading an argument, ask:
• "Even if this evidence is true, does the conclusion have to follow?"
• "What is the author assuming without saying?"
• "What other explanations or possibilities might they be ignoring?"
• Internal monologue patterns that can be used:
• "The argument is flawed because the author assumes X..." (Assumption-type language).
• "Isn't it possible that Y is true?" (Objection-type logic).
• "The author makes an illegal move by doing Z..." (Descriptive flaw language).

Strategy to Approach Flaw Questions

• Identify the conclusion to find what the author is trying to prove.
• Often found after words like thus, therefore, so, hence.
• Find the premises (support), which are the reasons offered to justify the conclusion and are used as evidence.
• Evaluate the reasoning by determining if the conclusion actually follows from the premises.
• Look for gaps in logic, unstated assumptions, and leaps in reasoning, and determine what the argument is taking for granted.
• Classify the argument type to anticipate the kind of flaw:
• Conditional Logic: If X, then Y reasoning may confuse sufficient/necessary conditions.
• Causation: Assumes X causes Y, often based on correlation or timing.
• Comparison / Analogy: Treats two things as logically equivalent without justifying the comparison.
• Statistical / Sampling: Draws broad conclusions from small, biased, or unrepresentative data.

Anticipating and Eliminating Flaws

• Ask even if the premises are true, does the conclusion have to be true?
• Paraphrase the flaw by saying "The author assumes..." or "Isn't it possible that...?"
• Eliminate wrong answers:
• Misdescribe the Flaw: Describes an error that isn't actually present.
• Wrong Structure: Doesn't match how the argument is logically built.
• Strengthens: Helps the argument, which is the opposite of what you want.
• True but Irrelevant: Describes something factual, but doesn't address the flaw.
• Too Strong / Out of Scope: Uses extreme or unrelated language not supported by the argument.

Key Points in Identifying Flaws

• Every LSAT flaw is about the connection between evidence and conclusion.
• Identify what's wrong with that connection, not in the facts themselves.

Common Flaw Types

• Necessary vs. Sufficient:
• Flaw: Confuses a necessary condition for a sufficient one (or vice versa).
• Watch for: Conditional logic check the direction.
• Causal Flaw:
• Flaw: Assumes correlation = causation. Look for alternate causes, reverse causation, or mere coincidence.
• Watch for: Causal claims based on studies, trends, or timing, often overconfident without ruling out other possibilities.
• Part vs. Whole / Whole vs. Part:
• Flaw: Assumes what's true of the parts is true of the whole, or vice versa.
• Watch for: Generalizations between levels of grouping (individual group).
• Unproven = False:
• Flaw: Concludes a claim is false just because it hasn't been proven true.
• Reminder: Lack of evidence evidence of the opposite.
• Ad Hominem:
• Flaw: Attacks the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.
• Bias may affect credibility but doesn't automatically discredit reasoning.
• Sampling Flaw:
• Flaw: Draws a broad conclusion from a small, biased, or unrepresentative sample.
• Watch for: Surveys, polls, anecdotal examples, especially with no mention of representativeness.
• Irrelevant Rebuttal (Straw Man):
• Flaw: Responds to a distorted version of someone's argument instead of the actual claim.
• Watch for: Mischaracterizing a position to refute it more easily.
• False Choice (False Dichotomy):
• Flaw: Acts like there are only two options when in fact there may be more.
• Watch for: Arguments framed as either/or without justification.
• Relative vs. Absolute:
• Flaw: Confuses comparative terms (e.g., "better," "more") with absolute outcomes (e.g., "wins more games").
• Watch for: Percentages vs. totals, and comparison language that overreaches.
• Takes for Granted (Unstated Assumption):
• Flaw: Assumes something is true without evidence.
• Common answer phrasing "Presumes without justification..." and "Takes for granted that..."
• Fails to Consider (Overlooked Possibility):
• Flaw: Ignores a relevant factor or alternative explanation that could weaken the conclusion.
• Common answer phrasing "Overlooks the possibility that..."
• Unclear Definitions / Shifting Terms:
• Flaw: Uses a key term in different ways or fails to define it clearly.
• Watch for: Subtle shifts in how a term is used, or vague definitions that go unchecked.

Bonus Strategy

• Focus on the connection of evidence and conclusion.

Flaws Often Found in Wrong Answer Choices

• Circular Reasoning:
• The conclusion simply restates the premise using different words.
• This is a real flaw, but rare on the LSAT and often thrown in as a decoy.
• Ask does the conclusion depend on itself to be true?
• Internal Contradiction:
• The author contradicts themselves within the argument.
• Very rare and easy to spot when it does occur.
• Look for blatantly opposing claims.
• Equivocation (Ambiguous Language):
• Uses the same word or idea in two different ways without clarification.
• Only applies when the definition truly shifts.
• Ask if a word is being used inconsistently or vaguely across the argument?
• Inappropriate Appeal:
• Supports a claim by appealing to emotion, authority (without establishing credibility), or popularity (public opinion). Appeals can be valid if logically relevant, but often irrelevant on the LSAT.
• Ask if the support is based on feelings, status, or crowd approval instead of logic or evidence?

Final Pro Tip

• When tempted by one of these answers, go back to the stimulus and ask, "Did the argument actually do this?"
• This is a trap no matter how logical it sounds.

Common Trap Answer Types

• Scope Traps:
• Out of Scope introduces ideas not mentioned or even hinted at in the argument. If it brings in something totally new, eliminate it.
• Extreme Language uses words like always, never, must, or only that go beyond what the argument claims. The LSAT favors moderate, supported language.
• Wrong Flaw:
• Describes a real flaw, just not the flaw in this argument, and doesn't match the actual reasoning used. Always ask, "Did this argument actually commit that error?"
• Not a Flaw:
• Points out something that happens in the argument, but it's not a logical flaw.
• Irrelevant Relationship:
• Talks about a logical connection or structure, but one that has nothing to do with the argument's actual reasoning. It often sounds technical or formal but doesn't apply.
• Strengthens Instead of Criticizes:
• Helps the argument by filling in a missing link or confirming the reasoning.
• Degree Trap:
• Uses language that is too strong and goes beyond what's required or too weak and has no real impact. It doesn't match the strength or tone of the original argument's claim.

Final Pro Tip In Doubt:

• Match the structure and scope of the argument. The right answer will always speak to what the argument actually does, not what sounds generally flawed or impressive.