<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" > <channel> <title>flaws – LSAT</title> <atom:link href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/tag/flaws/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat</link> <description>LSAT Course Offerings, LSAT Prep Courses, Tutoring & LSAT Practice Resources | Manhattan LSAT Prep</description> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2019 17:24:24 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en-US</language> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.3.2</generator> <item> <title>What’s Tested on LSAT Logical Reasoning</title> <link>https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/whats-tested-lsat-logical-reasoning/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Laura Damone]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2019 21:54:38 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[How To Study]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Logical Reasoning]]></category> <category><![CDATA[LSAT Strategies]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Study Tips]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Taking the LSAT]]></category> <category><![CDATA[assumptions]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Bridge Assumptions]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Causation Flaws]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Comparative Flaws]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Defender Assumptions]]></category> <category><![CDATA[flaws]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Inference questions]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Necessary Assumptions]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Sampling Flaws]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Sufficient Assumptions]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/?p=8556</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>More than any other section of the test, the LSAT Logical Reasoning section has a clear mandate that directly pertains to your future as a law student: to make sure you can understand the ins and outs of argumentation. For that reason, one of my favorite LSAT Logical Reasoning tips—indeed, one of the first LSAT […]</p> <p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/whats-tested-lsat-logical-reasoning/">What’s Tested on LSAT Logical Reasoning</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat">LSAT</a>.</p> ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img decoding="async" fetchpriority="high" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-8558" src="https://cdn2.manhattanprep.com/lsat/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/04/whats-tested-on-lsat-logical-reasoning.jpg" alt="What's Tested on LSAT Logical Reasoning" width="1200" height="628" srcset="https://cdn2.manhattanprep.com/lsat/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/04/whats-tested-on-lsat-logical-reasoning.jpg 1200w, https://cdn2.manhattanprep.com/lsat/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/04/whats-tested-on-lsat-logical-reasoning-300x157.jpg 300w, https://cdn2.manhattanprep.com/lsat/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/04/whats-tested-on-lsat-logical-reasoning-768x402.jpg 768w, https://cdn2.manhattanprep.com/lsat/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/04/whats-tested-on-lsat-logical-reasoning-1024x536.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">More than any other section of the test, the LSAT Logical Reasoning section has a clear mandate that directly pertains to your future as a law student: to make sure you can understand the ins and outs of argumentation. For that reason, one of my favorite LSAT Logical Reasoning tips—indeed, one of the first LSAT Logical Reasoning tips I share with all of my students—is to think of the Logical Reasoning section </span><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/science/21memory.html?_r=1&ref=science" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">not as a hurdle you have to jump to </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">get</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> to law school, but as part of your essential preparation </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">for</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> law school</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">.</span><span id="more-8556"></span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">What you learn from LSAT Logical Reasoning will carry you through your legal education and beyond. Being able to precisely understand what you read, to point out flaws in persuasive arguments, and to draw conclusions that </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">must</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> be true, not conclusions that</span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> could</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> be true: these are skills that are necessary far beyond the legal profession. Forgive me my soapbox, but these are the skills we all must possess in order to have an informed citizenry, and yet, maddeningly, unless you took philosophy in college, chances are </span><a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-breslin/why-public-schools-dont-t_b_7956518.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">you haven’t done much of this kind of work</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">.</span></p> <h4><b>LSAT Logical Reasoning Tests Argument Structure</b></h4> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Each of the LSAT Logical Reasoning sections will feature 25 or 26 short pieces of text. Each is between two and four sentences long on average. For each short piece of text, you’ll answer a question. Some questions ask you to describe the text. Others ask you to manipulate it. Still others ask you to think about what the text implies. Most of those short pieces of text are arguments.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">So, let’s start out by defining what we, and the LSAT, mean by an argument. An argument is a statement, or a combination of statements, that uses evidence to support a claim. Another word for a piece of evidence that you’ll see a lot during your LSAT prep is “premise.” Don’t be intimidated: a premise is just a piece of evidence. The claim that is supported by the evidence is the argument’s conclusion.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Most questions that ask you to describe the argument will ask you to pick out the argument’s conclusion, or to identify the role that a given piece of text serves. The most challenging ones, however, will ask you to describe the entire argument structure abstractly.</span></p> <h4><b>LSAT Logical Reasoning Tips for Mastering Argument Structure</b></h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Look for keywords. Words such as </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">thus, therefore, hence, </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">and</span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> consequently </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">tell you that you’re looking at a conclusion. Words such as </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">because, for, </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">and </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">since</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> tell you that you’re looking at a premise.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Break down every argument. No matter what the task of the question, you’ll always need to know the argument’s conclusion and it’s premise(s).</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Find the conclusion first. It’s usually easier to spot, and you can work backwards from there to identify the premises.</span></li> </ul> <h4><b>LSAT Logical Reasoning Tests Assumptions</b></h4> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">We told you already that most questions on LSAT Logical Reasoning present you with a short argument. What we didn’t tell you was that the vast majority of these arguments are pretty bad. How do you tell a good argument from a bad one? Well, in a good argument, the premises prove the conclusion. In a bad argument, they don’t.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Another way of saying that is that a bad argument rests on at least one assumption: something that would need to be true for the argument to be good, but that isn’t established by the argument. Consider these two examples:</span></p> <ol> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Geckos are reptiles. Therefore, geckos are cold-blooded.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Geckos are reptiles. All reptiles are cold-blooded. Therefore, geckos are cold-blooded.</span></li> </ol> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Argument 1 might look good at first. But Argument 1 only makes sense if we bring in outside knowledge about reptiles, namely the fact that they’re cold-blooded. In LSAT-speak, we’d say that Argument 1 </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">assumes </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">reptiles are cold-blooded, and is therefore a bad argument.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Argument 2, on the other hand, states that fact explicitly. You don’t need to assume anything for the argument to make sense, and so it’s a good argument.</span></p> <h4><b>LSAT Logical Reasoning Tips for Mastering Assumptions</b></h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">If a question asks you to strengthen, weaken, support, or point out a flaw in an argument, that argument definitely rests on at least one assumption. After breaking the argument down into premise(s) and conclusion, try to figure out what the argument assumes.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">If a question asks you to identify the conclusion, describe the role that certain text plays, or describe the point at issue between two speakers, assumptions probably aren’t relevant. Don’t agonize over figuring out whether those arguments rest on assumptions. Just stick to the task of the question itself.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Assumptions come in </span><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/lsat-logical-reasoning-links-vs-objections/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">two flavors: Bridge Assumptions and Defender Assumptions</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Bridge Assumptions help you bridge the gap between the concepts in the premises and the concepts in the conclusion. In the example above, Argument 1 rested on a Bridge Assumption that bridges the gap between the reptiles discussed in the premise and concept of cold-bloodedness discussed in the conclusion.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Defender Assumptions defend against a possible objection to the argument. An example of a Defender Assumption for the gecko argument could be “the argument assumes that geckos aren’t mammals.”</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Some assumptions, when added to the argument, make the argument a good argument. “All reptiles are cold-blooded” is an example of this. We call these Sufficient Assumptions, and there’s </span><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/lsat-sufficient-assumption-questions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">a whole question type devoted to finding them</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Other assumptions, when added to the argument, don’t go far enough to make the argument good. “Geckos aren’t mammals” is an example of this. Does it improve the argument? Sure. But it doesn’t make it airtight. We call these Necessary Assumptions, and as you might have predicted, </span><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/ikea-furniture-and-the-difference-between-necessary-and-sufficient-assumptions-on-the-lsat/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">they too have their own question type</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">.</span></li> </ul> <h4><b>LSAT Logical Reasoning Tests Flaws</b></h4> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">A concept that’s intimately related to assumptions in LSAT Logical Reasoning is the concept of flaws. In fact, </span><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/the-morbid-flaws/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">every flaw could be described as an assumption</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, and every assumption is a kind of flaw. But there are certain types of flaws in reasoning that come up over and over in LSAT Logical Reasoning. They’re worth exploring in their own right.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Of the questions that ask you to identify a flaw, about half will present the flaw as an assumption. The other half will give you a flaw with a name. Now, there are plenty of lists out there, some with </span><a href="https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">literally hundreds of flaws</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, but LSAT Logical Reasoning deals with a core set of flaws that is (mercifully!) much smaller.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Conditional Logic flaws: </span><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/sufficient-vs-necessary-conditions-on-the-lsat/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">These flaws deal with “if/then” statements and their variations</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">. If you’re in Brooklyn, you’re in New York. But if you’re in New York, that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re in Brooklyn. The takeaway? You can’t simply reverse an “if/then” statement. Any argument that tries to contains a Conditional Logic flaw. Similarly, we also can’t say that if you’re not in Brooklyn, you’re not in New York. You can’t simply negate an “if/then” statement either, which is the second most common Conditional Logic flaw.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Causation flaws: Any time an LSAT Logical Reasoning question </span><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/deep-dive-causality-lsat/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">deals with cause and effect</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, chances are high that the question exhibits a causation flaw. The most common among these is confusing a correlation between two things for a causal relationship between things. I aced the LSAT after barely sleeping the night before. But that doesn’t mean that my lack of sleep helped me ace the test.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Sampling flaws: When LSAT Logical Reasoning questions deal with data, there’s often a Sampling flaw lurking in the argument, because remember: LSAT arguments are overwhelmingly bad! The most common Sampling flaw is </span><a href="https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/54/Biased-Sample-Fallacy" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">using a sample that isn’t a good representation of the group the conclusion deals with</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">. Consider this argument: Those college graduates who have taken the LSAT demonstrate considerable logical prowess. Thus, our colleges must be doing a great job at teaching logic. Is the sample in that argument, LSAT takers, representative of college graduates generally? Nope. LSAT takers are a highly selective group. What’s more, they’re </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">particularly</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> unrepresentative with respect to their logical prowess, as LSAT takers have likely spent a great deal of time studying logic whereas the typical college grad likely has not.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Comparative flaws: If an LSAT Logical Reasoning question makes a comparison, oftentimes it will be a bad one. This is particularly true if the comparison is an </span><a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_analogy" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">analogy</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">. Just because two things are similar in one respect, doesn’t mean they’re similar in another respect. And just because two things are different in one way doesn’t mean they’re different in another way. </span></p> <h4><b>LSAT Logical Reasoning Tips for Mastering Flaws</b></h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Flaws are one of the few things you can (and should!) memorize on the LSAT Logical Reasoning section. The list above isn’t exhaustive, so check out </span><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/the-complete-guide-to-the-most-common-logical-fallacies-found-on-the-lsat/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">a more complete list</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> before you embark on that process.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Flaws are exhibited and flaws are described. To master flaws, you need to be able to do both! That means recognizing flaws in arguments and recognizing when the common flaws are described by answer choices.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Look for flaws everywhere! The LSAT Logical Reasoning section isn’t the only place to find flaw fodder (try saying that five times fast). </span><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/logical-reasoning-flaw-questions-news/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Cable news shows</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, click-bait articles, and your friends’ social media posts are all full of fallacies (we know, we’ve seen them). Looking for flaws in outside sources will deepen your understanding of them and help you spot them more reliably on test day.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Don’t pick the duds. There are two flaws that show up in a ton of answer choices but are almost never right: self-contradiction and </span><a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">circular reasoning</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">. Why? Because it’s hard to write an argument that exhibits one of these flaws without being totally obvious. If an argument says two things that can’t both be true (self-contradiction), it’s pretty hard to miss. Same goes for an argument whose conclusion is logically equivalent to its premise (circular reasoning).</span></li> </ul> <h4><b>LSAT Logical Reasoning Tests Inferences</b></h4> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">If a question on one of the LSAT Logical Reasoning sections doesn’t give you an argument, there’s a good chance that your task will be to come up with an </span><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/5-ways-of-thinking-about-inference-questions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">inference</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">. An inference is something that isn’t explicitly stated, but that could be concluded from the statements given. For example, from the statements “If you’re in Brooklyn, you’re in New York” and “Laura’s not in New York,” we can infer that I’m also not in Brooklyn. (If that’s confusing to you, it’s time to brush up on your </span><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/love-conditional-logic-lsat/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">conditional logic</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">!)</span></p> <h4><b>LSAT Logical Reasoning Tips for Mastering Inferences</b></h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Some Inference questions will ask you for something that must be true. These answers must be 100% provable.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Other Inference questions will ask you which answer is most strongly supported. These don’t have to be 100% provable, but they have to be pretty close.</span></li> </ul> <h4><b>What’s Tested on LSAT Logical Reasoning: Bringing it All Together</b></h4> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Because there are 2 scored LSAT Logical Reasoning sections on every test, this is a section that should demand a lot of your attention as you prepare! If you look at an LSAT Logical Reasoning section, you might be struck by just how many different things the questions will ask you to do. It’s easy for that diversity to overwhelm you. But there’s more that unites LSAT Logical Reasoning than divides it. Think of breaking down arguments, spotting assumptions, calling out flaws, and making inferences as through-currents that inform the section across question type and task.</span></p> <p><b>Final LSAT Logical Reasoning Tips</b></p> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Try reading the question before the argument or facts. This will tell you whether there will be an argument to break down, and if so, whether you should be trying to spot assumptions and flaws.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">If you have to reread the question before tackling the answer choices, that’s okay. Even though it takes an extra few seconds, the payoff of knowing how to approach the text is worth it.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Before you look at the answers, try to predict a right answer in your head. This process, called prephrasing, forces you to interact with the question on a different level. When done successfully, it deepens your knowledge of the test. But when done unsuccessfully, it alerts you to the fact that you aren’t fully understanding what you’re reading or what you’re being asked to do.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">When you’re analyzing answer choices, rely on </span><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/three-buckets-lsat-answer-choices/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">process of elimination</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">. Reading an answer and asking yourself “Could this be right?” makes it more likely that you’ll end up with a bunch of answers you like. On the other hand, asking yourself “Can I find a concrete reason this answer is wrong?” makes you more likely to eliminate wrong answers and narrow it down to the right one.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">If you can’t articulate a concrete reason an answer is wrong, put a star by it. Come back to it later and figure out why to give it the axe.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">The hardest questions in an LSAT Logical Reasoning section are between 15 and 22.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">If you’re looking for a top score, push your pace through earlier questions to give yourself ample time to dig into those harder ones.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">If LSAT Logical Reasoning isn’t your strong suit, invest more time into earlier questions that are more likely to be in your wheelhouse, and the final 2 questions which are usually of medium difficulty.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">The hard questions aren’t worth more than the easy ones. If it stumps you, ditch it before it eats up too much of your time.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">How much time you spend per question is personal, but for those looking for a top score, trying to do the first 15 questions in 15 minutes is a good goal. Start by trying the first five in five, then the first ten in ten. Work your way up to 15 in 15.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Don’t waffle. If you have it down to two answers and can’t figure out which one is right, try to identify the difference between them, then think about that difference as you reread the argument or facts one last time. The difference is what will make one right (assuming you have it down to the right answer and a wrong answer!) and the other wrong.</span></li> </ul> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Don’t stop here! We’ve got loads of great material to help you prep for the LSAT Logical Reasoning section. Check out our </span><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/resources/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">free resources</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, our </span><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/store/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">books</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, our </span><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/prep/on-demand/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">self-study program</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, or </span><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/classes/free/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">try a class for free</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">! ?</span></p> <hr /> <p><em><strong><img decoding="async" class="alignleft wp-image-8472 size-thumbnail" src="https://cdn2.manhattanprep.com/lsat/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/01/laura-damone-1-150x150.png" alt="" width="150" height="150" /><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/instructors/laura-damone/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Laura Damone</a> is a Manhattan Prep instructor based in San Francisco, CA.</strong> She fell for the LSAT while getting her undergrad degree and has now taught LSAT classes at more than 20 universities around the country. When she’s not teaching, learning, or publishing her work, she can be found frolicking in the redwoods and exploring the Pacific coast. <a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/classes/#instructor/33" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Check out Laura’s upcoming LSAT courses here!</a></em></p> <p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/whats-tested-lsat-logical-reasoning/">What’s Tested on LSAT Logical Reasoning</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat">LSAT</a>.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Logical Reasoning Flaw Questions in the News</title> <link>https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/logical-reasoning-flaw-questions-news/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Patrick Tyrrell]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:50:06 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[How To Study]]></category> <category><![CDATA[In the News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Just for Fun]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Logical Reasoning]]></category> <category><![CDATA[LSAT Strategies]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Study Tips]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Famous Flaws]]></category> <category><![CDATA[flaws]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Logical Reasoning Flaw Questions]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/?p=8021</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Ready to study the right way? We incorporate the latest discoveries in learning science into our LSAT course to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of your prep. Want to see? Try the first session of any of our upcoming courses for free. 1/6 of our questions in Logical Reasoning are Flaw questions, and about 45-50% of […]</p> <p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/logical-reasoning-flaw-questions-news/">Logical Reasoning Flaw Questions in the News</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat">LSAT</a>.</p> ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-8038" src="https://cdn2.manhattanprep.com/lsat/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/03/logical-reasoning-flaw-questions-in-news-patrick-tyrrell.png" alt="Manhattan Prep LSAT Blog - Logical Reasoning Flaw Questions in the News by Patrick Tyrrell" width="1200" height="628" srcset="https://cdn2.manhattanprep.com/lsat/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/03/logical-reasoning-flaw-questions-in-news-patrick-tyrrell.png 1200w, https://cdn2.manhattanprep.com/lsat/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/03/logical-reasoning-flaw-questions-in-news-patrick-tyrrell-300x157.png 300w, https://cdn2.manhattanprep.com/lsat/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/03/logical-reasoning-flaw-questions-in-news-patrick-tyrrell-768x402.png 768w, https://cdn2.manhattanprep.com/lsat/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/03/logical-reasoning-flaw-questions-in-news-patrick-tyrrell-1024x536.png 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;"><b><i>Ready to study the right way? We incorporate the latest discoveries in learning science into our LSAT course to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of your prep. Want to see? </i></b><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/classes/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><b><i>Try the first session of any of our upcoming courses for free</i></b></a><b><i>.</i></b></span></p> <hr /> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">1/6 of our questions in Logical Reasoning are </span><b>Flaw </b><span style="font-weight: 400;">questions, and about 45-50% of the answer choices in Logical Reasoning Flaw questions (over the past ten tests) refer to one of these 10 Famous Flaws:</span><span id="more-8021"></span></p> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Conditional Logic </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">(Necessary vs. Sufficient)</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Part vs. Whole</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Correlation vs. Causality</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Unproven vs. Untrue</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Sampling</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Ad Hominem </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">(Attacking the Source, not the Content)</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Appeal to Inappropriate Authority</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Two Different Meanings </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">(Equivocation)</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Circular </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">(Assumes the Conclusion / Premise Restates the Conclusion)</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Internal Contradiction </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">(Inconsistent claims)</span></li> </ul> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Since so many answer choices are going to be alluding to these same ten flaws, it’s valuable to really understand the flaws. The better we know what they <i>are</i>, the easier it is to see when they <i>aren’t </i>occurring, and so that makes evaluating 45-50% of the answer choices much easier!<br /> </span></p> <p><b>Here are ten political arguments, each one exhibiting a different Logical Reasoning flaw on the list. See if you can match them up. </b><b><br /> </b><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">(And call off your dogs… these arguments don’t reflect our editorial views. This is good practice to stay intellectually disciplined. Some of these premises will sound partisan, but we’re not here to fight premises. We’re here to analyze reasoning. The problems we’re trying to identify relate to </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">The Move </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">from evidence to conclusion. Focus on that.)</span></p> <p>1. CNN has suggested that candidates be held more responsible for their statements by adding a “realtime fact checking” component to future debates. However, we can safely ignore this idea, given that CNN has frequently been guilty of factual inaccuracies in its own reporting.</p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">2. President Trump is clearly inept at foreign policy. His erratic confrontations with North Korea led to a sudden switch in tone from the North Koreans and a welcome chance to open direct talks, but this result was only a lucky happenstance, since the President is too poor at foreign policy to have planned this chain of events.</span></p> <p>3. People agitating for gun control measures such as universal background checks claim that these restrictions would not impinge upon the 2nd Amendment, but obviously they <i>are</i> trying to take our guns away. For in the very name ‘gun control’, it betrays their desire to have control of our guns.</p> <p>4. President Trump recently proposed enacting tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, to improve the business position of the American steel and aluminum manufacturers. Although opponents of the action point out that it will raise the price of many domestic goods that use steel and aluminum, it is clear that tariffs are popular with the American worker, as a recent poll found that 76% of steel and aluminum workers support the measure.</p> <p>5. Only those who are in the top 1% of wealth will see long term benefit from the new tax plan. Anyone who sees long term benefit from the new tax plan will support it. Thus, if someone is attacking the new tax plan, then they are clearly not in the top 1% of wealth.</p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">6. Trump is the worst person who has ever been and who could ever be President. But if he were to be removed from office, then we’d be stuck with Mike Pence, who is also a disaster. Hence, we’re better off just having Trump be President.</span></p> <p>7. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the scientific community have been overblowing the potential danger and extent of climate change. We know this because in numerous surveys encompassing a diverse group of Americans, a consistent majority of respondents believe that the climate is “not currently in crisis.”</p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">8. The FBI’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election reveals that as Russian “trolling” activity picked up in the summer of 2016, Trump’s popularity rose and his opponent’s popularity fell. Clearly, this meddling from Moscow had a critical effect on the election results.</span></span></p> <p>9. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been investigating connections between Russia and the Trump campaign leading up to the 2016 election. Since the investigation has not found any evidence of collusion, we can be sure that there was not any collusion.</p> <p>10. The US Congress works slowly, often irrationally, and with constant partisan bickering. Therefore, Lindsay Graham, a US congressperson, works slowly, often irrationally, and with constant partisan bickering.</p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Wow, wasn’t that excruciating? You went to your favorite LSAT blog as an </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">escape </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">from the political stories flooding your Twitter and Facebook feeds. </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">Okay, let’s see how we did.</span></p> <h4><b>ANSWERS</b></h4> <p>1. CNN has suggested that candidates be held more responsible for their statements by adding a “real-time fact checking” component to future debates. However, we can safely ignore this idea, given that CNN has frequently been guilty of factual inaccuracies in its own reporting.</p> <h4><b>AD HOMINEM </b><b><br /> </b><span style="font-weight: 400;">(</span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">rejects an idea based on its source, not its content)</span></i></h4> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">One of the most beautiful habits the LSAT trains us to possess is to </span><b>evaluate ideas </b><b><i>on their own merit</i></b><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">, </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">regardless of whether they’re being offered by people who are potentially biased, have an ulterior motive, or have behaved in the past in ways that conflict with their current advice. </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">Maybe your ex doesn’t believe that you can change, but the </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">LSAT </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">does. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">So what if CNN has been guilty of factual inaccuracies in the past? Maybe they’ve turned over a new leaf or reminded themselves of the definition of ‘journalism.’ And even if CNN is still veracity-challenged, is their proposal any good? If we’re hatin’ on Ted Turner’s Newsertainment Revue (CNN) because CNN has been a half-truth disseminating enterprise in the past, then we clearly hate the dissemination of half-truths. Well, political debates are full of half-truths, and since many people don’t get a chance to fact-check the debate later, then wouldn’t real-time fact-checking help to thwart the dissemination of half-truths? We should be </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">liking </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">CNN’s idea for the same reason we might </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">not like</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> CNN. We can’t be </span><b>dismissive</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> of ideas (“</span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">we can safely </span></i><b><i>ignore</i></b><i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> this idea</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">”) just because they’re coming from a potentially dubious source. </span></p> <p><b></b><b>——————————</b><b><br /> </b><b><br /> </b><span style="font-weight: 400;">2. President Trump is clearly inept at foreign policy. After all, his erratic confrontations with North Korea led to a sudden switch in tone from the North Koreans and a welcome chance to open direct talks, but this result was only a lucky happenstance, since the President is too poor at foreign policy to have planned this chain of events. </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span></p> <h4><b>CIRCULAR REASONING<br /> </b><span style="font-weight: 400;">(the argument </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">assumes what it sets out to prove</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> / the conclusion </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">is a restatement </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">of one of the premises)</span></h4> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">An author who’s guilty of circular reasoning doesn’t seem to have the capacity to consider possibly disconfirming evidence. “Chocolate is clearly the best flavor of ice cream, because if you consider all the other flavors, there just aren’t any flavors that are better than chocolate.”</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">This author believes that Trump is bad at foreign policy, and when he looks at a possibly disconfirming piece of evidence (the positive breakthrough of direct talks with North Korea), he stays determined to interpret this evidence through his pre-existing belief that Trump is bad at foreign policy. </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">Maybe Trump really </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">did </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">have a master plan. Maybe his years of negotiating deals have given him strong intuitive abilities to read his adversaries, and maybe Trump has had ample opportunities to experiment with unorthodox methods of negotiating.</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span></p> <p><b>——————————</b></p> <p>3. People agitating for gun control measures such as universal background checks claim that these restrictions would not impinge upon the 2nd Amendment, but obviously they <i>are</i> trying to take our guns away. For in the very name ‘gun control,’ it betrays their desire to have control of our guns.<b></b></p> <h4><b>EQUIVOCATION</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">(the argument uses </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">the term “gun control” in two different ways</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">)</span></h4> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">When a Logical Reasoning flaw answer choice puts a term in quotes and accuses the author of </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">shifting meanings</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">, it’s probably an incorrect answer choice. This is very rarely the </span><b>actual</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> flaw. In order to feel good about picking such an answer, you should be able to define the word/idea in question in two completely different ways. For this argument, we can do just that:</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">Usage 1: “gun control” = universal background checks (controlling who is allowed to purchase guns)</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">Usage 2: “gun control” = taking someone’s guns away</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">This type of willful obfuscation of language is poisonous in our political discourse. It is similar to the idea of Straw Man, where you’re responding to a different position than the one actually offered. The Straw Man is an exaggerated version of the claim actually offered, so it’s an easy claim to defeat (a straw man is easy to bring down). </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">Person 1: We should try to enact some additional constraints on gun ownership in an attempt </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">to reduce </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">the incidence/severity of mass shootings.</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">Person 2: No gun law is going to prevent </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">all</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> mass shootings. What we should REALLY be talking about is…</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">I want to suggest a Grand Bargain for liberals and conservatives:</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">CONSERVATIVES, you can’t have an absolutist position on current gun laws. There’s no way they’re currently </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">perfect</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">. We should be allowed to discuss possible changes to them without you freaking out and thinking we’re rescinding the 2</span><span style="font-weight: 400;">nd</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"> Amendment.</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">LIBERALS, you can’t have an absolutist position on immigration laws. There’s no way they’re currently </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">perfect</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">. We should be allowed to discuss possible changes to them without you freaking out and thinking that we’re sending back the Statue of Liberty.</span></p> <p><b>——————————</b></p> <p>4. President Trump recently proposed enacting tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, to improve the business position of the American steel and aluminum manufacturers. Although opponents of the action point out that it will raise the price of many domestic goods that use steel and aluminum, it is clear that tariffs are popular with the American worker, as a recent poll found that 76% of steel and aluminum workers support the measure.<b></b></p> <h4><b>SAMPLING</b></h4> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">When arguments lean on a survey or sample, we want to ask ourselves a couple basic questions:</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">– is it a sufficiently large (at least 100 people) and diverse (i.e. representative) sample of people?</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">– do we have a reason to think their answers might be biased or pressured in some way?</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">A sampling flaw is only occurring when the conclusion speaks for a bigger group than the sample does.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">f.e. if the conclusion had been “It is clear that tariffs are popular with the American </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">steel </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">worker,” it would be a much safer inference. </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">f.e. if the conclusion had been “It is clear that tariffs are popular with </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">some </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">American workers,” it would be a good inference.</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">A Sampling Logical Reasoning flaw can feel a lot like a Comparison Flaw. By concluding something about “the American worker” on the basis of a poll about “steel and aluminum workers,” we’re assuming that the average American worker is fair to compare to steel and aluminum workers. (The Comparison Flaw is that the author fails to recognize a key difference between the two groups.)</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">In this argument, the key difference is that steel and aluminum workers will disproportionately benefit from tariffs, whereas other workers are more likely to see some financial harm in the form of higher costs on certain goods.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">If you’re trying to assess the popularity of a measure, you should definitely consider those it benefits </span><b>and</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> those it harms. </span></p> <p><b>——————————</b></p> <p>5. Only those who are in the top 1% of wealth will see long term benefit from the new tax plan. Anyone who sees long term benefit from the new tax plan will support it. Thus, if someone is attacking the new tax plan, then they are clearly not in the top 1% of wealth.</p> <h4><b>CONDITIONAL LOGIC FLAW (aka “Necessary vs. Sufficient”)</b></h4> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">If we’re reading a Logical Reasoning Flaw question and we see any conditional language (such as the “if” and “any” I just uttered), we need to start assuming that they’re testing Conditional Logic flaws. Here, the conditional giveaway words were </span><b>only</b><span style="font-weight: 400;">, </span><b>anyone</b><span style="font-weight: 400;">, and </span><b>if</b><span style="font-weight: 400;">.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“</span><b>If</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> X, then Y” = X —> Y </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">“</span><b>Only if </b><span style="font-weight: 400;">X, then Y” = Y —> X </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">It’s very important to differentiate between these two. This is where many, if not most, of the conditional logic errors come from.</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">“Only” and “Only if” work the same way. They always introduce the </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">right side </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">idea, so we can </span><b>draw an arrow through </b><span style="font-weight: 400;">only / only if, to remind ourselves that what follows those words belongs on the right side of the arrow.</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">“-o-n-l-y—> those who are in top 1% will see long term benefit” = long term benefit –> in top 1%</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Anyone</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> is a universal, just like </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">all, any, each, every, no, none</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">. When you have a universal idea, it goes on the left.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“Anyone with long term benefit will support tax plan” = long term benefit —> support tax plan</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">When we have multiple conditionals, we ask ourselves, “Can these chain together?” (We may have to contrapose one of them to see the possible chain) </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">Chains happen when you have the </span><b>opposite idea in the same place</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"> </span><b>X</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> –> Y</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"> </span><b>~X</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> –> Z</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">gives you</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"> ~Y –> ~X –> Z</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">or chains happen when you have the </span><b>same idea in opposite places</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"> </span><b>X</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> –> Y</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"> Z –> </span><b>X</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">gives you</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"> Z –> X –> Y</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Can we chain together these two conditionals?</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">long term benefit –> in top 1%<br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">long term benefit –> supports tax plan</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">No, because they have the same idea in the same spot. Meanwhile, the author’s conclusion </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">acts </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">like we can chain them together, because it’s saying “if not supports tax plan, then not in top 1%.” </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">We should contrapose our two given conditionals so that we can better spot the illegal move the author is making.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">not in top 1% –> not long term benefit</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">not supports tax plan –> not long term benefit</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">If our author’s conclusion is “if not supports tax plan, then not in top 1%,” then she’s picturing this logic train:</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“if not supports tax plan, not long term benefit. </span><b>if not long term benefit, then not in top 1</b><span style="font-weight: 400;">%.”</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">The first half there is legitimate. The second half is going the wrong way. We can say to ourselves, “The author is botching that first conditional, the one connecting long term benefit to top 1%.”</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">We would be able to correctly describe the flaw by </span><b>using necessary vs. sufficient language.</b></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">(A) the author treats a condition that guarantees membership in the top 1% as though it is required for membership in the top 1%</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">or we could correctly describe the flaw by </span><b>showing a potential counterexample.</b></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">(A) the author fails to consider that some people might be in the top 1% but not receive long term benefit from the tax plan</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span></p> <p><b>——————————</b></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">6. Trump is the worst person who has ever been and who could ever be President. But if he were to be removed from office, then we’d be stuck with Mike Pence, who is also a disaster. Hence, we’re better off just having Trump be President. </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span></p> <h4><b>INTERNAL CONTRADICTION<br /> </b><span style="font-weight: 400;">(the author presents claims that are inconsistent with each other)</span></h4> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">This famous Logical Reasoning flaw (just like Circular Reasoning and Equivocation) is very rare, although LSAT has tested it at least once on a recent test.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">If Trump were really ‘the worst there ever was or will be,’ then ANYONE ELSE would be better. Hence, the conclusion’s notion that we’d be better off keeping Trump as President contradicts something she earlier said. </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">In real life, you hear many exasperated liberals make arguments similar to this one. i.e., “Trump is the worst. But if we got rid of him, we’d have Pence, who’s just as bad.” </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">It’s possible that Trump and Pence are tied for the worst, but that doesn’t seem to be the thinking here. It feels more like a desire to complain is making someone say, “Don’t bother trying to make me feel better… I’m still gonna be mad.”</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">A very common distinction that LSAT tests is the difference between Relative vs. Absolute. Perhaps Trump and Pence are both unappealing to liberals as options for our President (“unappealing” = absolute). But it’s possible that Trump is more unappealing than Pence (“more unappealing” = relative).</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">Someone who argues with the defeatist logic of “What’s the point of ousting Trump? His replacement would also be bad” basically thinks that losing $10,000 is the same as losing $1,000. Yes, they’re both </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">bad</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> outcomes, but isn’t one </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">worse</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">?</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span></p> <p><b>——————————</b></p> <p>7. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the scientific community have been overblowing the potential danger and extent of climate change. We know this because in numerous surveys encompassing a diverse group of Americans, a consistent majority of respondents believe that the global climate is “not currently in crisis”.<b></b></p> <h4><b>APPEAL TO INAPPROPRIATE AUTHORITY</b></h4> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The author argues that the EPA and the scientific community are wrong about climate change because most Americans believe that we’re not experiencing a global climate crisis. No offense, most Americans, but do you guys have any idea what you’re talking about? Climate science is about as complex a scientific undertaking as there is. It takes professionals years of studying and training to make sense of the available climate data. Have most Americans put in that time? Do they even understand the critical difference between their local </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">weather</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> and the global </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">climate</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">? </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">This argument advertises that it probably does NOT have a Sampling Flaw, because it reassures us that we have numerous surveys (decent sample size) with a diverse group of Americans (representative sample).</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Appeal to Inappropriate Authority is a pretty rare Logical Reasoning flaw (both in terms of showing up as the genuine problem with the argument and in terms of showing up in incorrect answer choices). It has some close cousins: authors may appeal to people whose expertise has not been demonstrated, or authors may appeal to majority opinion as though that counts as fact, or authors may appeal to emotion in a matter that is purely factual.</span></p> <p><b>——————————</b><b><br /> </b><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">8. The FBI’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election reveals that as Russian “trolling” activity picked up in the summer of 2016, Trump’s popularity rose and his opponent’s popularity fell. Clearly, this meddling from Moscow had a critical effect on the election results. </span></p> <h4><b>CORRELATION vs. CAUSALITY</b></h4> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Getting better at spotting this flaw is mainly about developing an ear for Correlation language. The most common phrasings are:</span></p> <p><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">People who are X are more likely than those who aren’t to be Y</span></i><i><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span></i><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">People who are X tend to be Y<br /> </span></i><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">X happened. Then Y happened.</span></i><i><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span></i><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">As X was happening, Y was happening.</span></i><i><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span></i><i><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Here, the author is arguing that “as more Russian trolling was happening, Trump was getting more popular and Hillary was getting less popular.” Does that mean that the first thing caused the second thing?</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">Maybe, but not necessarily. LSAT bristles against the overconfident </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">certainty</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> with which authors declare their causal conclusions. Had the argument merely concluded, “Clearly, this meddling from Moscow </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">may have had some </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">effect on the election results,” it would be a responsible conclusion.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">When authors are overly sure about </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">one possible </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">way to interpret the background data, LSAT wants us to point out or entertain </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">other possible ways </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">to explain the same data. </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">Maybe Russian trolling had an uptick in July, at the same time as the Republican Convention. The pro-Trump and anti-Hillary speeches at the Republican Convention may have been the real causal reason for the shift in polling numbers, and the increase in Russian trolling at the same time was just a coincidence.</span></p> <p><b>——————————</b></p> <p>9. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been investigating connections between Russia and the Trump campaign leading up to the 2016 election. Since the investigation has not found any evidence of collusion, we can be sure that there was not any collusion.<b></b></p> <h4><b>UNPROVEN vs. UNTRUE</b></h4> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Just because someone has failed to prove X, or has offered an inadequate argument in favor of X, does not mean that we can conclude, with </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">certainty</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">, that X is false. Even if Mueller’s investigation fails to find any evidence, that doesn’t </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">prove</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> that no evidence exists. (It just highly suggests we should move on with our lives.)</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><b>——————————</b></p> <p>10. The US Congress works slowly, often irrationally, and with constant partisan bickering. Therefore, Lindsay Graham, a US congressperson, works slowly, often irrationally, and with constant partisan bickering.</p> <h4><b>PART vs. WHOLE</b></h4> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">We shouldn’t infer that because a </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">collective </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">has a given trait, each </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">part </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">of that collective shares the same trait (or vice versa). In this argument, we inferred that Lindsay Graham would be slow, irrational, and bickering on the basis of knowing that a group to which he belongs (Congress) is a slow, irrational, bickering group.</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">When we move from Part to Whole, or from Whole to Part as we did here, we’re really ignoring how group dynamics can result in emergent traits that differ from the underlying parts. We’re also failing to consider how individual parts of a group may be outliers and exceptions, but they are drowned out by the majority so “the group” doesn’t resemble the same qualities as the outliers. </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">Part to Whole should be renamed “The All-Star Team Fallacy.” Just because you have the best </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">players</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> doesn’t mean you have the best </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">team</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">. </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">And even though Congress is a slow, bickering group, Lindsey Graham might be an efficient, congenial member. They call him “Ol’ Golden Grahams” around the Capitol. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Whole to Part thinking is a pernicious force behind our growing political divisiveness. When we lump ALL Democrats or ALL Republicans together, we’re unfairly assuming that anyone accepting either group label automatically subscribes to the beliefs/behaviors we associate with that group. With that sort of dismissive, lazy, stereotyping thinking, we stop considering politicians on a case-by-case basis, and so we stop encouraging the Republicans we most like and the Democrats we most like. When Americans used to be more willing to “split the ticket” (i.e. I’m a Republican, but </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">this </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Democrat is cool with me), we seemed to have a more centrist, civil, functional political discourse.</span></p> <p><b>——————————</b></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">We came here to practice our ten famous flaws, and I couldn’t resist submitting a plea for civil centrism by the end.</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /> </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">It’s up to you LSAT students and future lawyers to remind the world how to moderate your language and how to resist the temptation to argue claims that exceed your available evidence. ?</span></p> <hr /> <p><b><i>Don’t forget that you can attend the first session of any of our online or in-person LSAT courses absolutely free. We’re not kidding! </i></b><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/classes/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><b><i>Check out our upcoming courses here</i></b></a><b><i>.</i></b></p> <hr /> <p><em><strong><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="alignleft wp-image-15335 size-thumbnail" src="https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2018/03/patrick-tyrell-150x150.png" alt="patrick-tyrrell" width="150" height="150" /><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/instructors/patrick-tyrrell/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Patrick Tyrrell</a> is a Manhattan Prep instructor based in Los Angeles, California.</strong> He has a B.A. in philosophy, a 178 on the LSAT, and relentless enthusiasm for his work. In addition to teaching test prep since 2006, he’s also an avid songwriter/musician. <a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/classes/#instructor/36" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Check out Patrick’s upcoming LSAT courses here!</a></em></p> <p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/logical-reasoning-flaw-questions-news/">Logical Reasoning Flaw Questions in the News</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat">LSAT</a>.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Having Fun with Logical Reasoning Flaws in Everyday Life</title> <link>https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/logical-reasoning-flaws-everyday-life/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Gentry]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2018 21:07:27 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[How To Study]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Just for Fun]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Logical Reasoning]]></category> <category><![CDATA[LSAT Strategies]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Study Tips]]></category> <category><![CDATA[flaws]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Logical Reasoning Flaws]]></category> <category><![CDATA[star wars]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Star Wars: The Last Jedi]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/?p=7873</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Learning science has come a long way in recent years, and we’ve been learning with it. We incorporate the latest discoveries in learning science into our LSAT course to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of your prep. Want to see? Try the first session of any of our upcoming courses for free. Okay, so maybe […]</p> <p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/logical-reasoning-flaws-everyday-life/">Having Fun with Logical Reasoning Flaws in Everyday Life</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat">LSAT</a>.</p> ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-7891" src="https://cdn2.manhattanprep.com/lsat/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/01/having-fun-logical-reasoning-flaws-everyday-life-star-wars-chris-gentry.png" alt="Manhattan Prep LSAT Blog - Having Fun with Logical Reasoning Flaws in Everyday Life by Chris Gentry" width="1200" height="628" srcset="https://cdn2.manhattanprep.com/lsat/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/01/having-fun-logical-reasoning-flaws-everyday-life-star-wars-chris-gentry.png 1200w, https://cdn2.manhattanprep.com/lsat/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/01/having-fun-logical-reasoning-flaws-everyday-life-star-wars-chris-gentry-300x157.png 300w, https://cdn2.manhattanprep.com/lsat/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/01/having-fun-logical-reasoning-flaws-everyday-life-star-wars-chris-gentry-768x402.png 768w, https://cdn2.manhattanprep.com/lsat/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/01/having-fun-logical-reasoning-flaws-everyday-life-star-wars-chris-gentry-1024x536.png 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></p> <p><b><i>Learning science has come a long way in recent years, and we’ve been learning with it. We incorporate the latest discoveries in learning science into our LSAT course to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of your prep. Want to see? </i></b><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/classes/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><b><i>Try the first session of any of our upcoming courses for free</i></b></a><b><i>.</i></b></p> <hr /> <p><b><i></i></b><span style="font-weight: 400;">Okay, so maybe “having fun” is a stretch. And okay, that’s definitely a stretch—not maybe a stretch. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">But an effective way to prepare for the Logical Reasoning portions of the LSAT is to practice your Logical Reasoning skills outside of the LSAT context. </span><span id="more-7873"></span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">So let’s play a game: you read an opinion piece about </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Star Wars: The Last Jedi</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> and compare your Logical Reasoning flaw thoughts against mine!</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">(By the time you’re reading this post, </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">The Last Jedi</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> will have been out for at least a month. Still, I feel it’s only fair to say that </span><b>you will read spoilers if you continue!!!!</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> Seriously, turn away now if you haven’t seen the movie yet.)</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">So here’s a piece about the varying responses to the movie I read a week or so ago. If you haven’t yet, glance through Chapter 4 of the </span><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/store/strategy-guides/logical-reasoning/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Logical Reasoning Strategy Guide</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Here’s a </span><a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/12/18/16791844/star-wars-last-jedi-backlash-controversy" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">link</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> to the piece—enjoy!</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Okay, so here are some that I found…</span></p> <h4><b>1) Appeal to Authority</b></h4> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The author of this piece recognizes the potential pitfalls of an appeal to authority argument. Whose opinion should you, a movie-goer, trust? A critic’s? Or a fan’s? And which critic or which fan? I found this element in the discussion of the divide between critical appreciation and fan appreciation in the first 5 paragraphs. </span></p> <h4><b>2) Sampling Flaw</b></h4> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">In the “Let’s Start Here…” portion of the piece, the author acknowledges the possibility of a sampling flaw. </span></p> <h4><b>3) Causation Flaws</b></h4> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">I hope this one was fairly easy to spot! In fact, on the LSAT, if a Logical Reasoning prompt or answer choice actually uses the word “cause,” you can be sure there is a causation element to the argument!</span></p> <h4><b>4) And Here’s One More…</b></h4> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">That I can describe, even if I don’t have an exact label for it. It’s a niche flaw, one that has elements of causation: the assumption that a relationship that was true in the past might be (or will be) true in the present/future. You find this in the author’s comparison of fan response to </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Empire Strikes Back</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> to fan response to the latest film. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">These are some of mine. There’s a smattering of false choice elements in there, too—does the film merit the love/hate dichotomy? Why couldn’t it fall somewhere in between? Hopefully, if you read with a critical eye, you found some others I haven’t mentioned. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">This is one example of how you can practice the Logical Reasoning mindset in your everyday life. Apply it to something that interests you! </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Good luck!</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Oh, and just for the record: I thought </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">The Last Jedi</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> was fantastic; I loved how it paid tribute to its origins (there are many, many </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Empire</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> parallels) while still clearly laying foundations for a new story, one that diverges from the general </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Star Wars</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> tropes. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">And one last thought: if you’re looking for </span><b><i>real</i></b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> food for Logical Reasoning practice, look to news coverage of politics. But be careful! Once you go through that looking glass (or stare into that abyss, depending on whether you want Lewis Carroll or Friedrich Nietzsche), you won’t come back… ?</span></p> <hr /> <p><b><i>Don’t forget that you can attend the first session of any of our online or in-person LSAT courses absolutely free. We’re not kidding! </i></b><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/classes/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><b><i>Check out our upcoming courses here</i></b></a><b><i>.</i></b></p> <hr /> <p><em><strong><a href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/instructors/chris-gentry/?utm_source=manhattanprep.com%2Flsat%2Fblog&utm_medium=blog&utm_content=Chris%20Gentry%20Instructor%20Bio&utm_campaign=LSAT%20Blog"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="alignleft wp-image-6971 size-thumbnail" src="https://d27gmszdzgfpo3.cloudfront.net/lsat/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/01/chris-gentry-2-150x150.png" width="150" height="150" /></a><a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/instructors/chris-gentry/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Chris Gentry</a> is a Manhattan Prep LSAT, GMAT, and GRE instructor who lives in Atlanta, Georgia.</strong> Chris received his Bachelor of Science in chemical engineering from Clemson and JD from Emory University School of Law before realizing that he genuinely enjoys the challenge of standardized tests, and his true passion is teaching. Chris’ dual-pronged approach to understanding each test question has helped countless of his students to achieve their goal scores. What are you waiting for? <a id="bloglink" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/classes/#instructor/64" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Check out Chris’ upcoming LSAT courses here.</a></em></p> <p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/logical-reasoning-flaws-everyday-life/">Having Fun with Logical Reasoning Flaws in Everyday Life</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat">LSAT</a>.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>The Morbid Flaws</title> <link>https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/the-morbid-flaws/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Mary Richter]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 20:40:12 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Logical Reasoning]]></category> <category><![CDATA[LSAT Strategies]]></category> <category><![CDATA[flaws]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.manhattanlsat.com/blog/?p=1622</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Some people have trouble with flaw questions on the LSAT because there are two ways the answer choices can be worded. One just points out the assumption by asking what the argument “takes for granted.” The other points out the assumption, too, but in a more indirect way; it tells you something the argument isn’t […]</p> <p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/the-morbid-flaws/">The Morbid Flaws</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat">LSAT</a>.</p> ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some people have trouble with flaw questions on the LSAT because there are two ways the answer choices can be worded. One just points out the assumption by asking what the argument “takes for granted.” The other points out the assumption, too, but in a more indirect way; it tells you something the argument isn’t considering by making the assumption: </p> <p><em>The argument fails to consider that…</em></p> <p>Or</p> <p><em>The argument ignores the possibility that…</em></p> <p>When I teach flaw questions, there are a couple of morbid examples I like to use to illustrate the difference. So apologies in advance for being a Debbie Downer, but I like to think the morbidity of these makes them more memorable. Here they are, the Morbid Flaws. <span id="more-1622"></span></p> <p><strong>1. The Delusion of Marriage Example</strong></p> <p>If I say, “Richard and I are getting married, so we are going to be together forever,” what am I assuming? That my marriage won’t fail. If this were the argument in a flaw question, the answer might be, “Mary takes for granted that her marriage won’t fail.” But the answer could also be worded differently. It could read, “Mary fails to consider the possibility that…” and then follow with any number of the many grim events that could prove my optimisim wrong. I’m failing to consider that I could get divorced, that my husband could cheat on me, that my spouse could die, or that I could move to a state or country that doesn’t recognize my marriage for some reason. (Told you… morbid.)</p> <p>Both of these ways of answering the question hinge on the same idea: that assuming my marriage won’t end involves a number of blind spots. We can point out what’s in one of the blindspots, or we can call me out as blind. Either way, it’s the same idea. </p> <p><span title="This is what the LSAT feels like when you don't prep"><img decoding="async" src="//s13.postimage.org/hywgfmfc7/i_Stock_000019637352_xsmall.jpg" align="right" style="margin: 5;padding: 0;border: 0" /></span><strong>2. The Plane Crash Example</strong></p> <p>Suppose I’m sitting next to you on a plane, and you’re nervous about flying. Offering the worst pep talk of all time, I say, “Come on. If the plane takes off safely, it will definitely land safely.” I’m assuming that the plane won’t crash. If (C) says, “Mary takes for granted that the plane won’t crash,” ding, ding! Choose it. But the answer choice could also note one of the possiblities I’m refusing to consider by assuming the plane won’t crash. If (E) reads, “Mary ignores the possibility that” and follows with, “the plane could run out of fuel,” “the plane could collide with low-flying birds,” or “the pilot could be exhausted,” it’s also right. I <em>am</em> ignoring these possibilities. </p> <p>The different approach of the answer choices on flaw questions doesn’t have to be confusing. If you find yourself befuddled, step back and think of a morbid example of your own. For some reason, they’re the easiest ones to come up with (at least for me). Assume you won’t die before age 100. What possibilities are you ignoring? If you take for granted that you’ll never be homeless, what are you failing to consider that could happen? (I think one reason it’s easy to generate negative, hypothetical life-intruders is that we spend so much time worrying about them.)</p> <p>It’s a good mental exercise if you find yourself re-reading flaw answer choices. Just be sure to listen to Madonna afterward. </p> <p><!-- ddsig --></p> <p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog/the-morbid-flaws/">The Morbid Flaws</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat">LSAT</a>.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>