This is Part I of a two-part lecture on Inductive Arguments. For Part II, continue on to S1E5. 

The funny thing about inductive arguments is that they often don’t establish their conclusions with 100% certainty; while they have some degree of truth regarding the veracity of the conclusion, they always inherently have the possibility of having their conclusion invalidated. This is often the case because the premises they rely upon to support their conclusions are chock-full of observational or circumstantial evidence, which is never fully reliable. The lack of 100% certainty is the basis for the variety of question types you will see on the Logical Reasoning section of the LSAT. You’ll have to find conclusions, identify the roles of the premises and conclusions in the argument, and mind that lack of certainty when you need to strengthen its Achilles’ heel or exploit it to weaken it. Or, maybe you can spot the open wound of the argument and just note its flaw, without having to pour salt on it and weaken it as well.

For episode notes, head to our website www.ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com