In this lesson, Shana and Trudel introduce you to LSAT Logical Reasoning Flaw questions, and bust the myth that "The February LSAT is THE HARDEST LSAT".  Simply not true. 

Flaw Notes:

A flaw is a fault in an argument that impairs the quality of its logical reasoning. In causal arguments, the flaw is found in the causal assumption, and often will reverse the cause and effect or create causation where there isn’t any.

In arguments by analogy, the flaw will illogically relate two groups or ideas whose differences are significant and being ignored.

In data sampling arguments, the flaw will often be found in how the survey was conducted and highlight a human error or a sample that misrepresents a whole.

A flawed causal argument will contain a flaw in the assumption; it will establish causation when there is merely correlation, or, it will establish only one cause when there is clearly more than one cause. Any time you have two things merely present or coexisting in the premise, and then you find a conclusion connecting them through a causal relationship, you will likely have a correlation/causation flaw. The correlation/causation flaw takes on three possible forms:

A. Correlation/Causation Confusion a. Example: If evidence suggests that people who snore have throat damage, a flawed argument might conclude that snoring causes throat damage, although the evidence only suggests a relationship (that snoring and throat damage are both traits of certain individuals). An answer choice might say: “The argument takes for granted that because certain characteristics are present whenever a condition occurs, those characteristics are a cause of that condition.” b. Example: Suppose an argument states that negative news reports cause damage to people’s confidence, which in turn can decrease the willingness of people to spend money

(A → B → C ). Then, it would be a flaw to say that a correlation between B and C couldn’t exist, without B and C being wrapped up in a conditional causal argument. Here, the correct answer choice will open the door to the possibility that B relates to C for reasons other than A, such as “people who have little confidence in the overall economy generally take a pessimistic view concerning their own immediate economic situations.” See Preptest 65 Section 1 #17.

c. Example: Suppose studies show a negative correlation between diet A and disease B, and suppose to conform to diet A you have to eat things within diet A that may also include non-diet-A foods (like a higher-fiber diet that also increases your calcium intake). To conclude that diet A directly causes a change in the incidence of disease B is a flaw. The reason why is because other non-diet-A foods (like high-calcium foods) could have just as easily caused the change in incidence of disease B.

Hosted by Shana Ginsburg, Esq., CEO of Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring. This podcast is developed, edited and mixed by Shana Ginsburg. Music by Taha Ahmed.

Podcast listeners take 15% off our LSAT Boss course on Teachable with offer code GAT15 at checkout.

Ginsburg Advanced Tutoring is a full-service tutoring, accommodations and admissions company designed to support the needs of the anything-but-average student.  For tutoring and accommodations inquiries, find us on the web at ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com or email us at hello@ginsburgadvancedtutoring.com.

Like what you hear? Leave us a review!