LSAT: Common Logical Flaw Example Answers (PowerScore)
About this set
Created by:
miguel-naguit on July 28, 2012
Subjects:
Log in to favorite or report as inappropriate.
Order by
74 terms
Terms | Definitions |
|---|---|
 Depending on the ambiguous use of a key term | Uncertain Use of a Term (Equivocation) |
| It confuses two different meanings of the word 'solve' | Uncertain Use of a Term (Equivocation) |
| Relies on interpreting a key term in two different ways | Uncertain Use of a Term (Equivocation) |
| Equivocates with respect to a central concept | Uncertain Use of a Term (Equivocation) |
| Fails to define the term | Uncertain Use of a Term (Equivocation) |
| Allows a key term to shift in meaning from one use to the next | Uncertain Use of a Term (Equivocation) |
| Makes an attack on the character of opponents | Source Argument (Ad Hominem Attack) |
| It is directed against the proponent of a claim rather than against the claim itself | Source Argument (Ad Hominem Attack) |
| It draws conclusions about the merit of a position and about the content of that position from evidence about the position's source | Source Argument (Ad Hominem Attack) |
| He directs his criticism against the person making the argument rather than directing it against the argument itself | Source Argument (Ad Hominem Attack) |
| Assuming that a claim is false on the grounds that the person defending it is of questionable character | Source Argument (Ad Hominem Attack) |
| It assumes what it seeks to establish | Circular Reasoning |
| Argues circularly by assuming the conclusion is true in stating the premises | Circular Reasoning |
| Presupposes the truth of what it sets out to prove | Circular Reasoning |
| The argument assumes what it is attempting to demonstrate | Circular Reasoning |
| It takes for granted the very claim that it sets out to establish | Circular Reasoning |
| It offers, in place of support for its conclusion, a mere restatement of that conclusion | Circular Reasoning |
| It treats something that is necessary for bringing about a state of affairs as something that is sufficient to bring about a state of affairs | Confusing Necessity for Sufficiency |
| From the assertion that something is necessary to a moral order, the argument concludes that that thing is sufficient for an element of the moral order to be realized | Confusing Necessity for Sufficiency |
| Confuses a sufficient condition with a required condition | Confusing Sufficiency for Necessity |
| Mistakes the observation that one thing happens after another for proof that the second thing is the result of the first | Mistaken Cause and Effect |
| Mistakes a temporal relationship for a causal relationship | Mistaken Cause and Effect |
| Confusing the coincidence of two events with a causal relation between the two | Mistaken Cause and Effect |
| Assumes a causal relationship where only a correlation has been indicated | Mistaken Cause and Effect |
| Fails to exclude an alternative explanation for the observed effect | Mistaken Cause and Effect |
| Overlooks the possibility that the same thing may causally contribute both to education and to good health | Mistaken Cause and Effect |
| The author mistakes an effect for a cause | Mistaken Cause and Effect |
| Refutes a distorted version of an opposing position | Straw Man |
| Misdescribing the student representative's position, thereby making it easier to challenge | Straw Man |
| Portrays opponents' views as more extreme than they really are | Straw Man |
| Distorts the proposal advocated by opponents | Straw Man |
| The author cites irrelevant data | Lack of Relevant Evidence |
| Draws a conclusion that is broader in scope than is warranted by the evidence advanced | Lack of Relevant Evidence |
| It uses irrelevant facts to justify a claim about the quality of the disputed product. | Lack of Relevant Evidence |
| It fails to give any reason for the judgment it reaches. | Lack of Relevant Evidence |
| It introduces information unrelated to its conclusion as evidence in support of that conclusion. | Lack of Relevant Evidence |
| Bases a conclusion on claims that are inconsistent with each other | Internal Contradiction |
| The author makes incompatible assumptions | Internal Contradiction |
| Introduce information that actually contradicts the conclusion | Internal Contradiction |
| Offers in support of its conclusion pieces of evidence that are mutually contradictory | Internal Contradiction |
| Some of the evidence presented in support of the conclusion is inconsistent with other evidence provided | Internal Contradiction |
| Assumes something that it later denies, resulting in a contradiction | Internal Contradiction |
| The judgment of experts is applied to a matter in which their expertise is irrelevant | Appeal to Authority |
| The argument inappropriately appeals to the authority of the mayor | Appeal to Authority |
| It relies on the judgment of experts in a matter to which their expertise is irrelevant | Appeal to Authority |
| Accepts a claim on mere authority, without requiring sufficient justification | Appeal to Authority |
| It treats popular opinion as if it constituted conclusive evidence for a claim | Appeal to Popular Opinion |
| Attempts to discredit legislation by appealing to public sentiment | Appeal to Popular Opinion |
| A claim is inferred to be false merely because a majority of people believe it to be false | Appeal to Popular Opinion |
| The argument, instead of providing adequate reasons in support of its conclusion, makes an appeal to popular opinion | Appeal to Popular Opinion |
| Attempts to persuade by making an emotional appeal | Appeal to Emotion |
| Uses emotive language in labeling the proposals | Appeal to Emotion |
| The argument appeals to emotion rather than reason | Appeal to Emotion |
| Uses evidence drawn from a small sample that may well be unrepresentative | Survey Errors |
| Generalizes from an unrepresentative sample | Survey Errors |
| States a generalization based on a selection that is not representative of the group about which the generalization is supposed to hold true | Survey Errors |
| Supports a universal claim on the basis of a single example | Exceptional Case/Overgeneralization |
| The argument generalizes from too small a sample of cases | Exceptional Case/Overgeneralization |
| Too general a conclusion is made about investing on the basis of a single experiment | Exceptional Case/Overgeneralization |
| Bases a general claim on a few exceptional instances | Exceptional Case/Overgeneralization |
| Takes the view of one lawyer to represent the views of all lawyers | Error of Composition |
| Improperly infers that each and every scientist has a certain characteristic from the premise that most scientists have that characteristic | Error of Composition |
| Assuming that because something is true of each of the parts of a whole it is true of the whole itself | Error of Composition |
| Presumes, without providing justification, that what is true of a whole must also be true of its constituent parts | Error of Division |
| Treats as similar two cases that are different in a critical respect | False Analogy |
| Treats two kinds of things that differ in important respects as if they do not differ | False Analogy |
| Fails to consider that some students may be neither fascinated by nor completely indifferent to the subject being taught | False Dilemma |
| Treats failure to prove a claim as constituting denial of that claim | Errors in the Use of Evidence |
| Taking a lack of evidence for a claim as evidence undermining that claim | Errors in the Use of Evidence |
| Treating the failure to establish that a certain claim is false as equivalent to a demonstration that the claim is true | Errors in the Use of Evidence |
| It confuses undermining an argument in support of a given conclusion with showing that the conclusion itself is false | Errors in the Use of Evidence |
| The argument takes evidence showing merely that its conclusion could be true to constitute evidence showing that the conclusion is in fact true | Errors in the Use of Evidence |
| Uncritically draws an inference from what has been true in the past to what will be true in the future | Time-Shift Error |
| Treats a claim about what is currently the case as if it were a claim about what has been the case for an extended period | Time-Shift Error |
First Time Here?
Welcome to Quizlet, a fun, free place to study. Try these flashcards, find others to study, or make your own.