19 Common LSAT Argument Flaws

Introduction

• The list contains 19 repeated argument flaws often seen in LSAT Logical Reasoning.
• Not exhaustive but highlights common flaws exploited by the LSAT.

Argument Flaws

1. Attacking the Source

• Attack should focus on premises or support, not the author or their motivations.

2. Unclear Terms/Equivocation

• Terms used inconsistently or with multiple meanings.

3. Weak Analogies

• Analogies fall apart when compared entities lose relevant similarities.

4. Misplaced Authority

• Authority cited outside their area of expertise.

5. Causation Confusion

• Mistaking correlation for causation.
  • Other possibilities: B causes A, C causes both, or X causes B.

6. Circular Reasoning

• Premise merely restates the conclusion.

7. Necessary vs. Sufficient Conditions

• Confusing conditions; a classic logical flaw.

8. False Dichotomy

• Pretends to divide into binaries but misses alternatives.

9. Probability vs. Certainty

• Confusing 'could be' with 'must be.'

10. Is vs. Ought

• Confusing descriptive statements with prescriptive conclusions.

11. Percentages vs. Quantity

• Percentages do not equate to actual quantities.

12. Biased Surveys

• Non-random surveys lead to faulty general conclusions.

13. Hasty Generalization

• Broad conclusions from small or non-representative samples.

14. Experiment Generalization

• Requires control groups and baseline measures.

15. Argument Failure Fallacy

• Opposing conclusion not justified simply by refuting an argument.

16. Relative vs. Absolute

• Relative comparisons do not imply absolute characteristics.

17. Single Solution Assumption

• Mistaking one solution as the only or best solution.

18. Red Herring

• Argument addresses irrelevant or tangential issues.

19. Tradition and Novelty Fallacies

• Tradition doesn’t imply correctness; novelty doesn’t guarantee improvement.

Conclusion

• For more on flawed LSAT arguments, consider enrolling in the 7sage online LSAT course.