Logical Fallacies and their role in LR

[shaynfernandez]

From what I understand about the logical reasoning section is a large portion or even a majority of the arguments constructed are flawed in some way. I have also noticed that a lot of the arguments exhibit the same types of invalid argument structures. Theoretically, by recognizing these common invalid argument types we could recognize their common assumptions/flaws.

The ones I have have noticed are listed below.

What I have noticed upon reviewing my past work, while consciously try to pin a flawed argument to a common fallacy type when they stick out:

I have noticed that when these types of flawed arguments or fallacies are used in collaboration with a certain question type (ex. Necessary Assumptions) they often yield predictable correct answers, and even more predictable incorrect answers.

I have started to try to use this predictability in the same way as I do on the Games section. Where on the games we see a lot of patterns with certain game types and the inferences that they yield. We use the Game type and the common inferences each game type yields to become faster and more accurate.


So my question is in a few parts:

Has anyone noticed a relation to pattern recognition of fallacy and/or question type?

Are certain fallacies prevalent and what indicators do they use?

Can we attribute the invalid arguments into reliable categories, or fallacies?

Or just in general, a relation between patterns based on question type and invalid arguments structures.


The list as followed:

1. Causality
-Whether there is an alternate cause, a correlation, or a reverse cause.
-Author usually assumes something that is a correlation is actually a causal relationship.

2. Sufficient vs Necessary
-Confusing the two and/or using them in opposing ways (ex. attempting to use a necessary assumption as sufficient)

3. Confusing Numbers and Percentages
-Using percentages as if they indicate numbers and vice-versa
-Depending on our task we can affirm or deny this.

4. Part-to-Whole
-Assuming the what is true of the whole is true of its parts and vice-versa

5.The Absence of Evidence
-Using the absence of evidence against a claim as evidence that no evidence against it exist, and thus making the claim true.
-Author assumes that this seemingly lack of evidence is sufficient to show his conclusion is valid.

6. Using an Analogy
-Using an analogy to compare two things that are not comparable.
-Author assumes that these things are comparable and we can attack that accordingly.

7. Sample Flaw
-Use a sample that is unrepresentative
-Assumes that the sample is representative and that the sample hasn't been altered or skewed in a biased way.

8. Only Option
-Stating that since we can't do options A,B,C that option D is the only one left.
-Assumes that there is a limited amount of options.

9. Counter-Claiming
-When the author attempts to refute another persons claim or position. (ex. "Some critics say X... but X is wrong because of Y"
-The author is assuming that the Y is relevant to an argument about X

10. Prescribing an Action
-When the author concludes that something "should" or "must be" done, without proving that it will be beneficial or will produce what he assumes that it will

11. Circular Reasoning
-Rare, but nonetheless its restating a premise in the conclusion

12. Equivocation Flaw
-Using the same word in two different ways

13. Ad Hominem appeal or attack
-When an argument appeals or attacks the character of the person instead of their reasoning.

[maryadkins]

There are certainly recurring flaw-types in LR arguments. We don't break them down into frequency by question-type, because common flaws are common across question types. You've nailed a number of them below. I'm putting a few comments below your list.

1. Causality
-Whether there is an alternate cause, a correlation, or a reverse cause.
-Author usually assumes something that is a correlation is actually a causal relationship.

2. Sufficient vs Necessary
-Confusing the two and/or using them in opposing ways (ex. attempting to use a necessary assumption as sufficient)

3. Confusing Numbers and Percentages
-Using percentages as if they indicate numbers and vice-versa
-Depending on our task we can affirm or deny this.

4. Part-to-Whole
-Assuming the what is true of the whole is true of its parts and vice-versa

5.The Absence of Evidence
-Using the absence of evidence against a claim as evidence that no evidence against it exist, and thus making the claim true.
-Author assumes that this seemingly lack of evidence is sufficient to show his conclusion is valid.

6. Using an Analogy
-Using an analogy to compare two things that are not comparable.
-Author assumes that these things are comparable and we can attack that accordingly.

7. Sample Flaw
-Use a sample that is unrepresentative
-Assumes that the sample is representative and that the sample hasn't been altered or skewed in a biased way.

8. Only Option
-Stating that since we can't do options A,B,C that option D is the only one left.
-Assumes that there is a limited amount of options.

9. Counter-Claiming
-When the author attempts to refute another persons claim or position. (ex. "Some critics say X... but X is wrong because of Y"
-The author is assuming that the Y is relevant to an argument about X

10. Prescribing an Action
-When the author concludes that something "should" or "must be" done, without proving that it will be beneficial or will produce what he assumes that it will

11. Circular Reasoning
-Rare, but nonetheless its restating a premise in the conclusion

12. Equivocation Flaw
-Using the same word in two different ways

13. Ad Hominem appeal or attack
-When an argument appeals or attacks the character of the person instead of their reasoning.

1, 3 = Very common. Look for. Particularly 1.

7 = Less common than you think.

9 = Not sure what you mean.

11 = Incredibly rare. Frequent wrong answer choice.

13 = Rare, but does come up.

Again, great job, and thanks for sharing these for others to check out. I just want to add that this isn't an exhaustive list of flaw types. We don't think it's the best use of time to try to identify and memorize every common flaw type. But it's definitely useful to work on making your own list and to look for the recurring ones as you become familiar with them.

[chike_eze]

I started doing something similar for ID flaw and Match the flaw. And I think it is helpful, however, I know I've made a few mistakes on actual questions because I was trying to fit the flaws in those questions to my list of known flaws.

So in my opinion, I think it helps to create a list of known flaws, but for some more advanced questions, with nuanced flaws, you will have to think outside the box.