Notification
You need to select an answer first.
Perhaps one of the most difficult parts of the Logical Reasoning part of the LSAT is modifying arguments. In ‘modifying arguments’ type of questions, you will be asked to strengthen or weaken arguments. You can do this by increasing or decreasing the validity of an assumption since assumptions are statements in arguments that are taken to be true.
Statistical fallacies are another form of causal fallacies, and these fallacies are relatively common in the LSAT. This is why it is important to familiarize yourself with them so you can avoid committing these fallacies yourself.
The biased sample fallacy is when you draw data from a statistical inference from a sample that is not representative of the population under consideration.
The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is cherry-picking data cluster to suit the assumption you made. Instead of analyzing the data and forming a conclusion, you use your hypothesis to choose which parts of the data will support it.
Also known as “hasty generalization,” this fallacy is when you draw a conclusion from an inadequate sample or premises.
Correlation refers to a statistical link between two things, while causation is when one thing causes another thing. It is common for test-takers to confuse these two concepts. Some things may be in correlation with each other but are taken as having causal relation.
Also known as “lurking variables,” confounding factors are additional factors that may be responsible for a correlation.
This error in thinking is when one incorrectly weighs the advantages and disadvantages of something. This is an error in one’s evaluation where the cost-benefit of something is not properly analyzed.
This error in thinking occurs when one thinks that just because something is a possibility then it is already a certainty, which is incorrect.
This type of question asks you to find statements that weaken or decrease the strength of an argument. An answer does not necessarily have to refute the argument completely. It only has to make it significantly weaker. The steps for solving this type of question is similar to the steps in solving ‘modify arguments’ questions.
A paradox is a statement that is seemingly absurd or self-contradictory at first but may actually be true when investigated further. Paradox questions will ask you to resolve the given paradox or explain how the contradiction can reasonably exist.
In these questions, you will be asked to provide a premise that will strengthen an argument with faulty reasoning. You will have to explain how an argument could still be true. In other words, you have to present information or a statement that could either significantly strengthen or weaken an argument.
One of the most common types of traps in ‘modify reasoning’ questions is when the answer choice shows the opposite of what the question stem presents.
Some common tricks used in the LSAT to catch unwary students are the following:
The translation of “EXCEPT” is that, of the five choices, all of them fit the condition EXCEPT one of them. On test day, expect to run into a stem that looks like this:
All of the following are reasons to go to law school EXCEPT:
(A) networking with future powerful lawyers
(B) eager to learn tax law
(C) increase your income
(D) impress your friends
(E) hone your poetry skills
This trap involves contradicting the question stem. This trap is very common on Strengthen/Weaken questions where the answer choice does the opposite of what the stem wants:
Here are examples of these deliberate tricks intended to catch students who rush through EXCEPT questions:
Next LSAT: Sep 08/ Sep 09
This is an adaptive drill: The questions will get harder or easier depending on your performance. You can't go backwards or change prior answers.
Complete: 0 / 9 correct
This is an adaptive drill: The questions will get harder or easier depending on your performance. You can't go backwards or change prior answers.
Complete: 0 / 6 correct
Next LSAT: Sep 08/ Sep 09