Flaw | LSAT Logical Reasoning
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 09. 2024
- Flaw questions in Logical Reasoning ask you to describe an error of reasoning of the argument. Learn three frameworks to make sure you apply the right set of Trap Answers to eliminate wrong answers.
Take a free practice digital LSAT
lsatlab.com/ls...
LSAT Lab is the most efficient and effective way to study for the Law School Admission Test. Learn the basics with our free video lessons, and dive deeper with our custom-built tools designed to efficiently improve your score.
With the free LSAT Lab Starter plan you can take a practice test and create a personalized study plan that fits your schedule based on your target LSAT test date, your goal score, and your personal strengths and weaknesses.
LSAT Lab works on your desktop, laptop, tablet, and even your mobile phone. Try it for free at lsatlab.com.
Subscribe to our CZcams channel to make sure you get our newest LSAT videos.
Thank you. Your videos are better than the Kaplan Course I took
Wow, a great explanation! Fat kudos. I have eliminated many doubts on these questions, especially those on trap answers. Even highly rated LR guides don’t explicate as you do. I really appreciate your efforts due to the fact that you and your team are decoding the rules applied by test makers and rewriting them with your own terms, an experiment that signifies one of the core functions in laboratory. But when RC strategies will be available?
Dear LSAT Lab,
I am currently finding Q25 to be particularly vexing.
I understand why A is correct, but it seems to me that D could also be correct in the sense that the "other characteristics" that lessened chances for Australopithecus' survival potentially explain "why" the condition required for Human survival (coping with diverse environments), was not sufficient for Australopithecus survival.
Would this not bolster answer A's reasoning and weaken the overall conclusion of the argument in tandem?
In considering your explanation and for answer D as a strengthening argument, do you mean that it does so by positing that the "other characteristics" must supersede the "ability to cope with diverse environments", and thus shift the axis of the argument away from that condition?
Perhaps I am overthinking the question, perhaps I am going beyond the mandate of the question's intent. I understand that only one answer can be right, but I am still very new at this, just started looking at LSAT material within the last few days. If you have time could you expound on these issues a little?
Your have excellent material and thank you for providing it.
Grateful Noir
Hi Noir! Tough one for sure. Keep in mind that this one is not about what is sufficient for Australopithecus's survival, but rather what is necessary for it. In this case, coping with diverse environments is necessary for survival according to the anthropologists. Answer (D) is one geared more at a causal line of reasoning. It seems to hint at an alternative cause. But it's not really an alternative cause for surviving, but rather a possible alternative cause to not surviving. But this argument never said that coping with diverse environments caused it to not survive.
@@tationutube Thank you! I very much appreciate the kind words. I teach and tutor every day and I'd love to connect. Grab a spot on my calendar if you'd like to discuss what it would take to get to your target score of 180. calendly.com/lsatlab/30min
I understand the conditional reasoning in the stimulus. I know that the answer is A, but only because (1) the other answers don't make sense and (2) it deals directly with conditional logic. I don't understand what it means to mistake the necessary for the sufficient. Can someone explain this concept in the context of this question?
BTW these videos have been really helpful in closing the gaps I have in my LR skills!!
@11:10 Wouldn't it also make sense that the vulnerability is "If Minivan --> Lower Risk" is mistaken with "Lower Risk ---> Minivan"? Having a Minivan may lead to lower risk, however, lower risk does not mean one has to have a minivan.
My thoughts exactly!
On the car example doesn’t person to confuse driving recklessly as a necessary condition as opposed to a sufficient condition.
Yo-yo. Necessary and sufficient conditions refer to conditional logic, inflexible rules of certainty/necessity. There isn't any conditional logic in that paragraph, so that would be the easiest way to eliminate the Nec vs. Suff answer. That flaw is basically synonymous with "the author botched an application of a conditional logic rule".
We usually spot conditional logic by seeing an indicator of certainty/necessity (e.g. if, when, whenever, all, each, any, every, no, the only || only, only if, unless, must, requires, ensures, will, guarantees ... etc.)
The only thing resembling conditional logic here would be the first sentence, "My friends say that I will one day have an accident because I drive my sports car recklessly". I would not call that a conditional statement because it isn't a timeless, inflexible rule. It's just a conversational statement about cause and effect.
But suppose we DID call it a conditional
"If I drive recklessly --> I will have an accident"
For the author to commit a Nec vs. Suff error, he would now have to apply that rule in a Backwards or Opposite fashion. The rest of his argument would sound either like
"Since I am going to stop driving recklessly, I will thus never be in an accident."
or like
"Since Joey got into an accident, it must mean that Joey was driving recklessly."
@@LSATLab much appreciated! Thank you
I find this flaw questions are hard to work out. Could you provide more example, please?
Hi Sajita, we’re working on a video with more examples now. If you subscribe to the channel, you’ll be notified when we release new videos. The one for you will be called 10 Famous Flaws and we’ll release it as soon as we complete it. Maybe Friday.
So can we infer that any stimulus with a conditional (in, then idea), can be diagrammed out, and if we see that the contrapositive does equal the same thing, we can assume that would be the answer? (I feel like I phrased this question messily, hopefully, you understand though.)
Hey, Vanessa
I'm mostly confused by the question because it doesn't seem like it's related to the video you're commenting on (how an argument is Flawed).
If you're doing Flaw and you see a conditional, then there's a 90% chance that the flaw will be confusing Necessary and Sufficient conditions (presenting a rule like "If X, then Y" and then applying it via some illegal negation or reversal: "Tom is Y, thus Tom is X" / "Tom is not X, thus Tom is not Y")
Your question sounds more about Must Be True questions -- in those, if an answer choice is saying the contrapositive of a conditional that was stated in the stimulus, then yes it will be the correct answer.
The contrapositive of a conditional always must be true.
A small giveaway to the Anthropologist question is the overall format - conditional flaw almost always have suff vs nece problems
What do you mean ?
for answer choice c arent we saying with abosolute certaninty that in the arguers particular siituation trading a sports car for a minivian WILL lower his risk of having an accident ( this seems like a pretty conficdent strong statment) but is based on some pattern of observations from other minivan cars ( so even though it can be likely) does not guarentee the argueres situation will be the same therefore though I understand why A is the correct answer choice I dont understand why see is not.
Hello, Is INTENT vs OUTCOME a type of causal flaw?
Eg: NBA fans have been playing more video games since the shutdown. So, this shutdown was meant to boost game sales.
We might say:
Confuses the outcome of the shutdown with the cause behind the shutdown. [ Is this also not a Causal type flaw?]
But the "popular flaws" video describes it as an "Intent vs outcome"
Please help.
The idea behind the Famous Flaw we call "Causal" is that the author is overconfidently thinking that X is the cause, when it could be Y or Z.
She's failing to consider alternate causes for whatever phenomenon she's trying to explain.
The idea behind Intent vs. Outcome is that "just because X caused Y to occur doesn't mean that anyone intended Y to occur".
So, yes, there's a causal element present, because Outcome / Result / Consequence are all synonyms for Effect.
But the flaw isn't about what Caused the Effect. We know what caused the effect. It's only a question of whether that Effect was intentional or not.
Let me know if any of that is confusing.
@@LSATLab thank you. It's clear
Thank you for the video, I learned a lot. Did the breakdown of trap answers not equal 100% from your research or was it rounding?
For a lot of the percentage things we'll show, it won't add up to 100%, because categories can be overlapping. In the case of an argument, it might have a Causal and a Comparative reasoning structure, so getting "double counted" will mean that when we add up Causal, Comparative, Conditional reasoning types, we'll get more than 100%.
Similarly, an answer can be wrong for more than one reason, so if we end up tagging an answer choice as having a word that's Too Strong and a concept that's Out of Scope, then it can similarly get double-counted.
What about all the other flaws? Aren't there at least 10 of them that frequently show up?
Yeah, we have a lesson specifically on enumerating the top 10:
czcams.com/video/NK6rurhc_5M/video.html
Do you offer tutoring?
Yes, we do. We offer three different subscription models, but we also customize them if people want more tutoring:
$49/month: everything on site (including class recording), but no live classes or tutoring
$99/month: everything on site + attend as many live classes as you'd like (there are around 40-50 per month)
$299/month: everything on site + unlimited live classes + 2 hrs. of tutoring
For tutoring beyond that, we usually charge $100 / hr, unless you're buying it in bulk.
To use our site you'd need to have a PrepPlus account with LSAC (that $99 per year subscription that lets you see all the tests on LawHub), although if you were doing a la carte tutoring (at $150/hr) you wouldn't need that.
This is great (-: thanks so much!
It would better to elaborate on trap answer types in writing rather than in orally explaining. Thanks.
this sucks.
Any specific feedback would be awesome.
You suck
@@LSATLab dont listen to her she has the iq of an almond