LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

User avatar
 Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 4627
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2011
|
#17863
I'll see if there's a good way to do that. the danger is that you can't account for every single option, and the more you list, the more likely it is that someone begins to think that those are the only ways it can be described. Tricky, right? :-D
 Kmikaeli
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: Dec 16, 2014
|
#17864
I see, I'll just account for the four options listed in the "Flaw of the Reasoning" section just to not confuse myself with all options. There is a reason why you listed those 4 options as opposed to all of them.

Lastly, the composition style questions gave me a bit of a confusion. The part to whole group or each and every aspect of group. Does this basically mean that a stimulus can wrongfully account for speaking about a part and correlate it to a whole group or to each and every aspect of the group? I understand that the author can structure an argument where he/she assumes that a part of a group automatically accounts for a whole group, but what about each aspect of that group?
 Kmikaeli
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: Dec 16, 2014
|
#17865
Also, when a method of reasoning is invalid, then we know the premises do not support the conclusion. Can it be possible that an invalid Method of Reasoning question can involve flawed reasoning factors, such as general lack of relevant evidence, overgeneralization, the causal and reasoning flaws, Straw man...etc.....
User avatar
 Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 4627
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2011
|
#17867
Kmikaeli wrote:Lastly, the composition style questions gave me a bit of a confusion. The part to whole group or each and every aspect of group. Does this basically mean that a stimulus can wrongfully account for speaking about a part and correlate it to a whole group or to each and every aspect of the group? I understand that the author can structure an argument where he/she assumes that a part of a group automatically accounts for a whole group, but what about each aspect of that group?
Yes, it goes both ways :-D

Kmikaeli wrote:Also, when a method of reasoning is invalid, then we know the premises do not support the conclusion. Can it be possible that an invalid Method of Reasoning question can involve flawed reasoning factors, such as general lack of relevant evidence, overgeneralization, the causal and reasoning flaws, Straw man...etc.....
Yes, most definitely. These are forms of flawed reasoning, in other words ways that the premises do not support the conclusion.

Thanks!
 Kmikaeli
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: Dec 16, 2014
|
#17871
This is the last question on this topic pertaining to the four causal methods mentioned to us in terms of flawed reasoning. If for instance there is a flaw in the argument where one event comes before another (aka sequence of events which is the first option on the flawed reasoning causal statement page), the answer choice I have to look for will be either how the author has come up with a causal statement by assuming how the sequence led to it or the answer choice might supply any of the other three alternative causal possibilities, is that correct? So, basically the answer choice can mention the flaw that is made apparent in the argument (in this case one event coming before another to create a flawed causal conclusion) or it can easily give us another answer choice from the other 3 aspects of assumption mentioned on pg 463.
User avatar
 Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 4627
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2011
|
#17873
Kmikaeli wrote:This is the last question on this topic pertaining to the four causal methods mentioned to us in terms of flawed reasoning. If for instance there is a flaw in the argument where one event comes before another (aka sequence of events which is the first option on the flawed reasoning causal statement page), the answer choice I have to look for will be either how the author has come up with a causal statement by assuming how the sequence led to it or the answer choice might supply any of the other three alternative causal possibilities, is that correct? So, basically the answer choice can mention the flaw that is made apparent in the argument (in this case one event coming before another to create a flawed causal conclusion) or it can easily give us another answer choice from the other 3 aspects of assumption mentioned on pg 463.
Ok, I bolded the part of the statement above that's a problem, specifically the words "have to." The answer to that is No, they get to do whatever they want to do. Could they decide to feature a causal flaw if one exists? Sure, but it's their world and they are under no obligation whatsoever to do what you expect. This is why you have to recognize what's there, and seek it, but if it isn't there you continue on and see if there is something else that's a problem. Sure, most of the time if a causal flaw is present they'd feature that as the right answer, but they don't have to.

That aside, should you look for it? Definitely, and you are on the right track as far as what you are looking for :-D
 Kmikaeli
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: Dec 16, 2014
|
#17876
lets just say the stimulus had a causal flaw in it. Can the answer choice expose that flaw in itself or present an alternate causal answer choice?
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 3883
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#17877
EVERY causal argument on the LSAT is flawed, and it's almost never just one flaw but potentially all of them. One may be more obvious than the others - take, for example, "whenever the temperature drops below 25 degrees it snows - therefore, snow causes the temperature to drop below 25 degrees". Seems like the most obvious flaw is that the two are probably reversed, right? It's more likely that the cold temp causes snow than vice versa.

But that same argument has other flaws - it fails to take into account an alternate cause (perhaps a drop in humidity causes both snow and cold? Maybe magic spells cause the cold temps, and snow is just a coincidence?), and it also fails to take into account the cause without the effect (maybe sometimes it snows and the temp stays above 25?)

The thing to remember is not to look for THE flaw in a causal argument, but for A flaw - any flaw will do, if that flaw actually occurred. Go into the answers with a wider lens - you are probably looking for an answer that describes some causal flaw as opposed to a particular causal flaw. In rare cases you may find that none of the answers describes a flaw in causal reasoning, and then you have to widen your lens even more to see what other flaw may be present.

Hope that helps!
 Kmikaeli
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: Dec 16, 2014
|
#17878
THAT ANSWER WAS BEYOND PERFECT!! That helps me realize that anything is fair game. A flaw can account for what seems blatant or alternatives no matter what. its all up to the answer choice to reveal exactly which flaw it will account for.
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 3883
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#17879
Glad I could help! Remember, though, that you still want to go in with a prephrase - "I'm looking for an answer that describes a causal flaw" is a good one in these cases. Don't allow the answers to suggest themselves to you - that's setting yourself up to fall for attractive wrong answers laid out as traps by the very clever test makers. Go in knowing what you are looking for, eliminate answers that don't match that, and whatever is left is your correct answer. If they all look like losers, reset - either go back and re-read the stimulus and stem to be sure you didn't misunderstand the first time, or else guess and move on before you get bogged down for too long.

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.