LSAT (Law School Admission Test) flashcards

A fallacy where an arguer mistakenly concludes that an observed effect is the cause, and the supposed cause is actually the effect.

• Confuses cause and effect.
• Often arises when two variables correlate but the direction of influence is unclear.
• Can be difficult to distinguish from common cause.

Memory trick: Don't put the cart before the horse; check the direction.

A fallacy where a proposition is claimed to be true (or false) simply because it has not been proven false (or true).

• Lack of evidence against a claim is taken as evidence for the claim.
• Lack of evidence for a claim is taken as evidence against the claim.
• Often seen in arguments about things difficult or impossible to prove.

Memory trick: Don't omit the middle ground; other options can always be found!

Re-evaluating a conclusion involves considering new information or different perspectives that might lead to a different interpretation of the evidence, potentially undermining or altering the original conclusion.

• Challenges the original conclusion's validity.
• Often introduces an overlooked factor or alternative context.
• Requires assessing how new information impacts the logical leap.

Memory trick: Look again, connect the dots differently, and a new picture emerges.

An unstated assumption that relies on a specific, often narrow, definition of a key term, and that definition is crucial for the argument's conclusion to follow.

• The argument's validity depends on accepting this specific definition.
• Often involves terms like 'rational,' 'moral,' 'effective,' or 'natural.'
• Challenging the definition weakens the argument significantly.

Memory trick: What's the hidden rulebook defining the key word?

A flaw in reasoning, or fallacy, is an error in an argument's logical structure that makes the conclusion not necessarily follow from its premises, even if the premises themselves are true.

• Undermines the validity of the argument.
• Can be formal (structural) or informal (content-based).
• Common types include causal, sampling, and generalization errors.

Memory trick: Don't trip on the logic, or your argument might just break.

A flaw in causal reasoning where the proposed cause occurs after the observed effect, or there is a significant mismatch in their timing, making the causal link implausible.

• Cause must precede effect
• Challenges chronological order
• Undermines direct causality

Memory trick: The effect can't start before the cause even begins!

The central claim or conclusion that an argument is trying to establish, around which all other statements function as support.

• Often presented as a conclusion
• Everything else supports it
• Answers 'What is the speaker trying to convince me of?'

Memory trick: The main point is the peak of the argument pyramid.

An unstated general rule or principle that an argument relies upon to connect a specific situation to a broader judgment or conclusion.

• Often involves ethical or moral judgments.
• Acts as a bridge between a factual premise and a normative conclusion.
• If the principle is not accepted, the conclusion may not follow.

Memory trick: The hidden 'rule' that makes the specific case fit the general judgment.

Strengthening a causal argument by providing evidence from a controlled experiment where the independent variable is manipulated, and the resulting change in the dependent variable is observed.

• Random assignment helps control for confounding variables.
• Directly tests the 'cause and effect' relationship.
• Often involves a treatment group and a control group.

Memory trick: An experiment is the strongest proof of a cause.

This flaw occurs when an argument applies a moral or ethical principle without fully addressing the complexities, conflicts, or counterarguments inherent in its application, especially when individual rights clash with collective benefits.

• Involves a conflict between two or more values or principles.
• The argument favors one principle without justifying why it should override another.
• Often seen in arguments about individual liberty vs. public good.

Memory trick: The scales of justice are unbalanced if one side's weight is ignored.

To weaken a causal argument, one typically introduces new information that suggests an alternative cause for the observed effect, shows that the cause occurs without the effect, or that the effect occurs without the cause.

• Challenges the 'cause and effect' relationship.
• Often involves finding confounding variables.
• Can show the correlation is not causation.

Memory trick: Cause and effect? Check for the 'why' and the 'what if'!

To strengthen an argument by eliminating alternatives, provide evidence that rules out other plausible explanations for an observed phenomenon, thereby making the proposed explanation more likely to be the correct one.

• Focuses on disproving competing hypotheses.
• Increases the probability of the stated conclusion by narrowing possibilities.
• Often involves showing that other potential causes are not present or are less impactful.

Memory trick: Clear the path of all other roads, and only one truth remains.

A fallacy where an argument is dismissed or attacked not based on its content, but on the perceived motives, circumstances, or character of the person making the argument.

• Focuses on the arguer, not the argument.
• Often implies bias due to personal interest.
• Does not address the truth or falsity of the claim itself.

Memory trick: Don't shoot the messenger; evaluate the message.

A fallacy that presents only two options or outcomes as if they are the only possibilities, when in fact more options exist.

• Often uses 'either/or' phrasing.
• Limits the scope of choices artificially.
• Ignores a spectrum of possibilities or alternative solutions.

Memory trick: Don't get trapped by 'either/or' when there's a whole spectrum in between.

Identifying the 'role' of a statement in an argument involves determining how it functions—whether it's a premise, conclusion, counter-premise, evidence, or an assumption—to support or challenge the main point.

• Requires understanding the argument's structure.
• Distinguishes between evidence and claims derived from evidence.
• Examines how a statement impacts the argument's validity.

Memory trick: Each word plays a part, building the argument's art.

Undermining a primary cause involves introducing information that suggests the proposed cause is not the *main* or *sole* reason for an observed effect, or that other factors are equally or more influential, thus weakening the causal argument.

• Challenges the uniqueness or dominance of the identified cause.
• Presents other significant contributing factors.
• Often used in 'most weakens' questions to find the strongest alternative.

Memory trick: The 'main' villain might have a powerful accomplice you didn't see.

An unstated belief about a fundamental principle, theory, or worldview that an argument relies upon to connect its premises to its conclusion, especially in areas like ethics, law, or epistemology.

• Often relates to underlying values or interpretive frameworks.
• If the philosophical assumption is rejected, the argument's foundation crumbles.
• Common in arguments about justice, truth, or societal norms.

Memory trick: Look for the 'hidden worldview' guiding the argument's judgment.

Occurs when an argument uses events that happened at different times to establish a causal relationship, but the timing of the events makes the proposed causation impossible or highly improbable.

• Challenges the 'before and after' requirement for causation.
• Often involves the effect preceding the supposed cause.
• A specific type of 'correlation is not causation' flaw.

Memory trick: Time travel can't be a cause; check the clock.

A necessary assumption in an argument by analogy is a unstated premise that ensures the two things being compared are sufficiently similar in all relevant respects for the conclusion to hold.

• The argument draws a conclusion about one thing based on its similarity to another.
• The assumption fills a gap between the premise about one thing and the conclusion about the other.
• To test, negate the assumption: if the argument falls apart, it's a necessary assumption.

Memory trick: Analogy needs 'EQUAL' footing: Ensure Quality, Understand Assumptions, Link (the two things).

A fallacy where an argument concludes that a premise is true or false based on whether the consequences of accepting or rejecting it are desirable or undesirable, rather than on its inherent truth or falsity.

• Focuses on outcomes rather than intrinsic merit.
• Often used in moral or ethical arguments.
• Assumes 'good outcome = true' or 'bad outcome = false'.

Memory trick: Don't judge the truth by the results; truth stands alone.

A flaw in reasoning where an argument mistakenly attributes a causal relationship due to the presence of an unacknowledged third variable that influences both the presumed cause and effect.

• Creates an illusion of direct causation.
• The confounding variable is correlated with both the independent and dependent variables.
• Must be controlled for in studies to establish true causation.

Memory trick: Don't just link the chain, check for a hidden main!

A logical fallacy where the true cause and effect are swapped, meaning the presumed effect is actually the cause of the presumed cause.

• Often arises when correlation is mistaken for causation.
• Challenges the direction of influence in a causal argument.
• Requires evidence that the 'effect' could plausibly lead to the 'cause'.

Memory trick: Cause and effect, don't get them retrospect!

A flaw in experimental design where participants or researchers (or both) are aware of which treatment is being administered, potentially leading to biased results due to expectations.

• Can result in a 'belief effect' or 'observer bias'.
• Double-blinding (neither participant nor researcher knows) is preferred.
• Undermines the validity of comparisons between treatment and control groups.

Memory trick: Experiments need care, or conclusions beware!

Occurs when an argument draws conclusions based on a change in absolute numbers without considering the change in the baseline or overall context from which those numbers are drawn.

• Often involves percentages or raw counts.
• Fails to account for population growth or other contextual shifts.
• Can lead to misinterpretation of improvement or decline.

Memory trick: Always check the starting line before judging the race.

An argument is weakened if a plausible alternative factor, independent of the stated cause, could also explain the observed effect.

• Challenges the exclusivity of the proposed cause.
• Does not directly disprove the original cause, but reduces its certainty.
• Often presented as a confounding variable or a separate, co-occurring event.

Memory trick: Causal chains can break with other rains!

Occurs when an arguer attributes a change or outcome to a specific intervention, but the change was merely a continuation of a trend that was already happening before the intervention.

• A type of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy.
• Fails to establish a unique causal link.
• Requires comparing the rate of change before and after the intervention, not just absolute values.

Memory trick: Don't claim credit for a river already flowing.

An unstated premise that is taken for granted as true within an argument, without which the argument's conclusion would not logically follow from its stated premises.

• Acts as a bridge between premises and conclusion.
• If false, the argument's validity is undermined.
• Often reveals a hidden belief of the arguer.

Memory trick: What must be true for the argument to stand tall and new?

A flaw in reasoning where an argument attempts to refute a claim about a 'primary' or 'major' cause by presenting evidence that merely shows it is not the 'sole' or 'exclusive' cause.

• Confuses 'most important' with 'only'.
• Evidence against exclusivity does not negate primacy.
• Requires careful attention to the degree of causation claimed.

Memory trick: Primary is not sole; don't let one part control the whole!

A flaw in reasoning where a problem is not solved, but merely moved or transformed, giving the false impression of resolution.

• Often seen in environmental arguments.
• A 'solution' addresses one aspect while creating another problem.
• The overall impact remains negative or unchanged despite an apparent improvement in one area.

Memory trick: Don't just move the mess; actually clean it up.

A fallacy where an argument is rejected or dismissed based on some characteristic or circumstance of the person making the argument, rather than on the merits of the argument itself.

• Focuses on the source's motives, character, or circumstances.
• Distracts from the actual argument being made.
• Does not logically refute the argument's content.

Memory trick: Remember, relevance is key; don't let personal attacks distract thee!

A flaw in reasoning where an arguer attributes an effect to a specific cause, while ignoring other plausible factors that could also have caused or contributed to the effect.

• Common in correlation-causation arguments.
• Fails to eliminate other possible explanations.
• Weakens the causal link between the proposed cause and effect.

Memory trick: When cause and effect are claimed, always ask 'What else might be blamed?'

Principle application questions require identifying a general rule or principle and determining how it applies to a specific scenario, or how a given principle might support or undermine an argument.

• Involves abstract thinking and generalization.
• Requires understanding the core logic of the principle.
• Can be used to strengthen, weaken, or justify an argument.

Memory trick: Does this rule fit the case, or throw it out of place?

An error in reasoning where an argument mistakenly concludes a cause-and-effect relationship without sufficient evidence, often confusing correlation with causation or overlooking alternative causes.

• Correlation does not equal causation.
• Must consider alternative causes or explanations.
• Often involves 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy.

Memory trick: Don't assume 'after this' means 'because of this'.

A flaw in experimental design where the control group is not properly isolated from the independent variable or is subject to biases that invalidate its use as a baseline for comparison.

• Undermines the validity of the experiment.
• Often results from a failure to blind participants or researchers.
• Makes it impossible to confidently attribute observed effects to the treatment.

Memory trick: A broken control group means a broken experiment.

An unstated assumption is a belief or premise that is not explicitly stated in an argument but is necessary for the conclusion to logically follow from the stated premises. If the assumption is false, the argument falls apart.

• It's a missing link between premises and conclusion.
• The argument relies on its truth without proving it.
• Often reveals a gap in the arguer's reasoning.

Memory trick: The ghost in the machine is the hidden key that links the logic.

A flaw in causal reasoning where an observed change is attributed to a new intervention, but the change was already occurring as part of an existing trend before the intervention began.

• Challenges the uniqueness of the cause
• Suggests the effect would have happened anyway
• Often involves overlooking baseline data

Memory trick: Don't claim credit for what was already happening!

A method of argument where one assumes a claim to be true, derives a logical consequence from it, and then shows that this consequence is absurd or contradictory to a known fact, thereby proving the original claim false.

• Assumes the opposite of what's being proven
• Derives a contradiction or absurdity
• Concludes the original assumption must be false

Memory trick: Show it's silly, then it can't be true!

A flaw in reasoning where an argument attributes an effect to one cause, but there is another plausible factor that could also be responsible for the observed effect.

• Challenges the uniqueness of the proposed cause
• Often involves a 'confounding variable'
• Weakens a causal conclusion

Memory trick: Look for another chef in the kitchen!

To weaken an argument is to introduce new information that makes the conclusion less likely to follow from the premises, often by challenging a causal link, presenting an alternative cause, or showing the premises might not lead to the conclusion.

• Targets the logical connection between premises and conclusion.
• Can introduce confounding variables or alternative explanations.
• Does not necessarily prove the conclusion false, just makes it less probable.

Memory trick: Hammer the link, break the chain, question the claim.

An unstated assumption in an argument concerning the definition or scope of a key term, which, if made explicit, would be necessary for the conclusion to follow.

• Often involves terms like 'rational,' 'ethical,' 'successful,' etc.
• The argument relies on a specific, often narrow, interpretation of the term.
• Challenging this definition can undermine the conclusion.

Memory trick: Words' true meanings, check the unseen leanings!

When two parties agree on facts but derive different conclusions because they hold different fundamental beliefs or values about what should be prioritized or how things ought to be.

• Often involves ethical or value-based claims
• Not a factual dispute
• Focuses on 'should' or 'ought'

Memory trick: Principles are like different rulebooks for the same game.

A flaw in reasoning where a conclusion about a person's true belief or value is drawn solely from their actions, ignoring other factors that might prevent actions from aligning with beliefs.

• Assumes a direct, unhindered link between belief and action.
• Fails to consider external constraints or alternative ways to express value.
• Often seen in arguments that equate 'doing' with 'valuing'.

Memory trick: Discrepancies aren't always what they seem; look for hidden reasons and unfulfilled dreams!

A flaw in causal reasoning where an argument attributes an effect to a specific cause, but fails to consider or rule out other plausible factors that could have produced the same effect.

• Often involves 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy.
• Requires considering multiple potential explanations.
• Weakens an argument by showing the stated cause might not be the *only* or *primary* cause.

Memory trick: Don't forget the 'other suspects' when identifying the cause.

A flaw in reasoning where a claim about effectiveness or change is made without comparing the observed results to a baseline, control group, or alternative conditions.

• Makes it impossible to determine if the measured effect is due to the intervention.
• Fails to account for placebo effect, natural remission, or other confounding variables.
• Essential for establishing true causality or effectiveness in experiments.

Memory trick: To claim effectiveness, a comparison you must make; without a baseline, your argument will break!

A flaw in reasoning where an argument assumes a direct, uncomplicated relationship between an input and an output, ignoring the complex steps, mediating factors, or inherent difficulties within a process.

• Ignores intermediate steps or constraints.
• Assumes a simple cause-and-effect in complex systems.
• Often found in political, economic, or social arguments.

Memory trick: Remember, a complex machine has many gears, not just one button.

A variable that influences both the dependent variable and independent variable, causing a spurious association.

• Creates an apparent causal link where none exists.
• Must be related to both the presumed cause and the presumed effect.
• Not considered in the original argument.

Memory trick: Don't just link, rethink the blink!

An unstated belief about human behavior or motivation that is required for an argument's conclusion to logically follow from its premises.

• Connects observed behavior to a prediction
• Often concerns consistency or resistance to change
• Crucial for arguments about effectiveness or failure

Memory trick: Don't assume people will change unless you prove why!

A flaw in reasoning where conclusions are drawn from a sample that is not representative of the broader population because the individuals in the sample have chosen to be there, and their choice is related to the outcome being studied.

• Often seen in studies where participants volunteer.
• Makes it difficult to attribute causation solely to the intervention.
• Requires considering pre-existing differences in the self-selected group.

Memory trick: Did they choose the group, or did the group make them choose?

An assumption is an unstated premise that must be true for the conclusion to logically follow from the stated premises. It's a missing link in the argument's chain of reasoning.

• An assumption is always unstated.
• If an assumption is false, the conclusion cannot be true.
• Can often be found by identifying gaps in the argument's logic.

Memory trick: Find the missing piece that makes the conclusion stick.

A generalization flaw occurs when an argument draws a conclusion about an entire group or category based on evidence from a limited or unrepresentative sample, or when it applies a principle universally without considering exceptions.

• Conclusion is too broad for the evidence provided.
• Ignores potential exceptions or differing circumstances.
• Often involves words like 'all,' 'every,' 'always,' 'never,' or implicit universal scope.

Memory trick: Don't judge the whole book by a single page, or you'll miss the exceptions.

To strengthen a causal argument, one can provide evidence that eliminates alternative causes, establishes the cause precedes the effect, or shows a mechanism for the causality.

• Rules out alternative explanations
• Confirms cause-effect order
• Provides a plausible mechanism

Memory trick: Seal the causal leak, eliminate other explanations!

An alternative explanation is a different reason or cause for an observed phenomenon that challenges the one proposed in an argument, often weakening the original conclusion.

• It provides a plausible reason other than the one given.
• It often directly competes with the original conclusion's validity.
• It is a common way to weaken causal arguments.

Memory trick: When there's another path, the first one might not be the only truth.

A logical fallacy where an argument assumes that the difficulty or requirements for proving a negative claim are equivalent to proving a positive claim.

• Often related to arguments from ignorance.
• It's generally harder to prove a negative (absence) than a positive (presence).
• The burden of proof typically lies with the one making the positive claim.

Memory trick: Don't just listen to words, hear the silent chords!

A flaw in reasoning where an argument fails to consider other plausible factors that could have caused an observed effect, attributing it solely to one specific cause.

• Weakens a causal claim by introducing competing explanations.
• Does not necessarily disprove the original cause, but reduces its certainty.
• Often seen when correlation is presented as causation.

Memory trick: Don't just point to one, there could be another one!

A fallacy that presents only two options or outcomes as exhaustive and mutually exclusive, when in reality there are other possibilities or a combination of options is possible.

• Often presented as 'either/or' situations.
• Limits the scope of possibilities unfairly.
• Can be used to force a choice by discrediting one option.

Memory trick: Don't omit the middle ground; other options can always be found!

An unstated premise that assumes two categories or actions are mutually exclusive or that prioritizing one necessarily excludes the other, which is required for a conclusion to hold.

• Often about 'either/or' situations
• Assumes choices are incompatible
• Crucial for arguments contrasting paths or outcomes

Memory trick: Just because you like apples doesn't mean you hate oranges!

An unstated premise or belief that must be true for the argument's conclusion to logically follow from its stated premises. It bridges the gap between the premises and the conclusion.

• It is a necessary condition for the argument's validity.
• If the assumption is false, the conclusion cannot be true.
• Often found in causal arguments or those with conditional reasoning.

Memory trick: Look for the 'missing link' that connects the evidence to the conclusion.

A fallacy where a general statement about a group is used to draw a specific conclusion about the actions or beliefs of individuals within that group, without evidence for the specific instance.

• Assumes group characteristics apply to all members.
• Fails to provide specific evidence for the conclusion.
• Can lead to stereotypes if not carefully reasoned.

Memory trick: From a group's trait, don't assume each part's fate!

A logical fallacy that presents only two options or sides when, in reality, there are more choices or perspectives.

• Also known as 'either/or' fallacy or 'false dilemma'.
• Limits the scope of choices unfairly.
• Often used to force a choice between two extremes.

Memory trick: Don't fall for the flawed calls!

An unstated belief or premise about the environmental consequences of an action, which is necessary for the argument's conclusion regarding environmental benefit or harm to hold true.

• Often involves assumptions about the 'greenness' of alternatives.
• Challenges involve exposing hidden costs or externalities.
• Argument fails if the implicit assumption is false.

Memory trick: Green claims need unseen screens!