Describe the Flaw - LSAT Logical Reasoning
Card 1 of 30
What is the flaw in reasoning when using a small sample size to generalize a conclusion?
What is the flaw in reasoning when using a small sample size to generalize a conclusion?
Tap to reveal answer
Hasty generalization. Drawing broad conclusions from insufficient or limited evidence.
Hasty generalization. Drawing broad conclusions from insufficient or limited evidence.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Identify the flaw: 'If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, so it must have rained.'
Identify the flaw: 'If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, so it must have rained.'
Tap to reveal answer
Affirming the consequent. Assumes the consequent proves the antecedent - invalid conditional reasoning.
Affirming the consequent. Assumes the consequent proves the antecedent - invalid conditional reasoning.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Identify the flaw: 'The law must be changed because it is unpopular.'
Identify the flaw: 'The law must be changed because it is unpopular.'
Tap to reveal answer
Appeal to popularity. Confuses public opinion with logical validity or truth.
Appeal to popularity. Confuses public opinion with logical validity or truth.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Identify the flaw: 'The senator must be correct because he is very persuasive.'
Identify the flaw: 'The senator must be correct because he is very persuasive.'
Tap to reveal answer
Appeal to authority. Relies on inappropriate authority rather than relevant expertise.
Appeal to authority. Relies on inappropriate authority rather than relevant expertise.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
What flaw arises from using ambiguous language to mislead?
What flaw arises from using ambiguous language to mislead?
Tap to reveal answer
Equivocation. Uses words with multiple meanings to create misleading arguments.
Equivocation. Uses words with multiple meanings to create misleading arguments.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
What is the flaw when a conclusion is drawn from an irrelevant point?
What is the flaw when a conclusion is drawn from an irrelevant point?
Tap to reveal answer
Red herring. Introduces irrelevant information to distract from the main issue.
Red herring. Introduces irrelevant information to distract from the main issue.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
What flaw is present when one assumes that what is true of the whole is true of the parts?
What flaw is present when one assumes that what is true of the whole is true of the parts?
Tap to reveal answer
Division fallacy. Incorrectly applies group characteristics to individual members.
Division fallacy. Incorrectly applies group characteristics to individual members.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
What flaw involves drawing a conclusion based on personal bias rather than evidence?
What flaw involves drawing a conclusion based on personal bias rather than evidence?
Tap to reveal answer
Confirmation bias. Selects evidence that supports preconceived notions while ignoring contrary data.
Confirmation bias. Selects evidence that supports preconceived notions while ignoring contrary data.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Identify the flaw: 'The team won because they wore their lucky socks.'
Identify the flaw: 'The team won because they wore their lucky socks.'
Tap to reveal answer
Post hoc fallacy. Confuses coincidence with causation based on temporal sequence.
Post hoc fallacy. Confuses coincidence with causation based on temporal sequence.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Identify the flaw: 'If we let students use calculators, they will never learn math.'
Identify the flaw: 'If we let students use calculators, they will never learn math.'
Tap to reveal answer
Slippery slope. Assumes extreme consequences will inevitably follow from initial action.
Slippery slope. Assumes extreme consequences will inevitably follow from initial action.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Identify the flaw: 'He cannot be a good teacher because he is too young.'
Identify the flaw: 'He cannot be a good teacher because he is too young.'
Tap to reveal answer
Ad hominem. Attacks irrelevant personal characteristics instead of the argument.
Ad hominem. Attacks irrelevant personal characteristics instead of the argument.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
What flaw involves attacking an oversimplified version of an opposing argument?
What flaw involves attacking an oversimplified version of an opposing argument?
Tap to reveal answer
Straw man. Refutes a weakened version rather than the actual opposing position.
Straw man. Refutes a weakened version rather than the actual opposing position.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Identify the flaw: 'This car is reliable because it never breaks down.'
Identify the flaw: 'This car is reliable because it never breaks down.'
Tap to reveal answer
Circular reasoning. Defines reliability using the same concept without independent evidence.
Circular reasoning. Defines reliability using the same concept without independent evidence.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
What flaw involves asserting a proposition is true because it is traditionally believed?
What flaw involves asserting a proposition is true because it is traditionally believed?
Tap to reveal answer
Appeal to tradition. Assumes long-standing practices are automatically correct or justified.
Appeal to tradition. Assumes long-standing practices are automatically correct or justified.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Identify the flaw: 'Everyone is doing it, so it must be right.'
Identify the flaw: 'Everyone is doing it, so it must be right.'
Tap to reveal answer
Bandwagon fallacy. Assumes popularity equals correctness without logical justification.
Bandwagon fallacy. Assumes popularity equals correctness without logical justification.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
What flaw arises from attacking an opponent's character instead of their argument?
What flaw arises from attacking an opponent's character instead of their argument?
Tap to reveal answer
Ad hominem. Attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
Ad hominem. Attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Identify the flaw in this reasoning: 'All cats are animals. Fluffy is an animal. Therefore, Fluffy is a cat.'
Identify the flaw in this reasoning: 'All cats are animals. Fluffy is an animal. Therefore, Fluffy is a cat.'
Tap to reveal answer
Affirming the consequent. Assumes if P then Q, Q is true, therefore P is true - invalid logic.
Affirming the consequent. Assumes if P then Q, Q is true, therefore P is true - invalid logic.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
What is a common flaw when assuming correlation implies causation?
What is a common flaw when assuming correlation implies causation?
Tap to reveal answer
Mistaking correlation for causation. Assumes one event causes another based solely on their occurrence together.
Mistaking correlation for causation. Assumes one event causes another based solely on their occurrence together.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
What flaw involves dismissing an argument due to its origins?
What flaw involves dismissing an argument due to its origins?
Tap to reveal answer
Genetic fallacy. Rejects an argument based on its source rather than its merit.
Genetic fallacy. Rejects an argument based on its source rather than its merit.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Identify the flaw: 'We must reduce taxes or face economic collapse.'
Identify the flaw: 'We must reduce taxes or face economic collapse.'
Tap to reveal answer
False dilemma. Presents only two options when more alternatives exist.
False dilemma. Presents only two options when more alternatives exist.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Which flaw involves assuming what one intends to prove?
Which flaw involves assuming what one intends to prove?
Tap to reveal answer
Begging the question. Uses the conclusion as a premise in circular reasoning.
Begging the question. Uses the conclusion as a premise in circular reasoning.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Identify the flaw: 'The senator must be correct because he is very persuasive.'
Identify the flaw: 'The senator must be correct because he is very persuasive.'
Tap to reveal answer
Appeal to authority. Relies on inappropriate authority rather than relevant expertise.
Appeal to authority. Relies on inappropriate authority rather than relevant expertise.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Identify the flaw: 'You cannot prove ghosts do not exist, so they must exist.'
Identify the flaw: 'You cannot prove ghosts do not exist, so they must exist.'
Tap to reveal answer
Argument from ignorance. Claims something is true because it cannot be proven false.
Argument from ignorance. Claims something is true because it cannot be proven false.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
What flaw is present when an analogy is used inappropriately?
What flaw is present when an analogy is used inappropriately?
Tap to reveal answer
Faulty analogy. Compares dissimilar things as if they were equivalent.
Faulty analogy. Compares dissimilar things as if they were equivalent.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Identify the flaw in this reasoning: 'He is a good speaker because he speaks well.'
Identify the flaw in this reasoning: 'He is a good speaker because he speaks well.'
Tap to reveal answer
Circular reasoning. The premise restates the conclusion without providing new evidence.
Circular reasoning. The premise restates the conclusion without providing new evidence.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
What is the flaw when one infers a universal truth from a specific case?
What is the flaw when one infers a universal truth from a specific case?
Tap to reveal answer
Overgeneralization. Extends a single instance to apply universally without justification.
Overgeneralization. Extends a single instance to apply universally without justification.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Identify the flaw: 'If we allow A, then B, C, and D will inevitably follow.'
Identify the flaw: 'If we allow A, then B, C, and D will inevitably follow.'
Tap to reveal answer
Slippery slope. Claims one event will inevitably lead to extreme consequences.
Slippery slope. Claims one event will inevitably lead to extreme consequences.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
What flaw occurs when an argument's conclusion does not logically follow from its premises?
What flaw occurs when an argument's conclusion does not logically follow from its premises?
Tap to reveal answer
Non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow logically from the given premises.
Non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow logically from the given premises.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Identify the flaw: 'This medicine is effective because it cured me.'
Identify the flaw: 'This medicine is effective because it cured me.'
Tap to reveal answer
Post hoc fallacy. Confuses personal experience with causation rather than correlation.
Post hoc fallacy. Confuses personal experience with causation rather than correlation.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
What flaw involves an appeal to emotion rather than reason?
What flaw involves an appeal to emotion rather than reason?
Tap to reveal answer
Appeal to emotion. Uses emotional manipulation instead of logical reasoning.
Appeal to emotion. Uses emotional manipulation instead of logical reasoning.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →