Lsat Logical Flaws - 1-8

Front 1

Mistaking a Necessary Condition for a Sufficient Condition

Back 1

The argument mistakes something that is necessary to bring about a situation with something that in itself is enough to bring about that situation.

Front 2

Mistaking a Necessary Condition for a Sufficient Condition

Back 2

The argument mistakes a factor that is required to achieve a state of affairs for a factor that is by itself enough to achieve that state of affairs.

Front 3

Mistaking a Necessary Condition for a Sufficient Condition

Back 3

The argument mistakes something that is necessary for its conclusion to follow for something that ensures that the conclusion follows.

Front 4

Mistaking a Necessary Condition for a Sufficient Condition

Back 4

The argument fails to take into account the distinction between something not being prohibited and its being authorized.

Front 5

Mistaking a Necessary Condition for a Sufficient Condition

Back 5

The argument mistakes a condition required if a certain result is to obtain for a condition that by itself is sufficient to guarantee that result.

Front 6

Mistaking a Necessary Condition for a Sufficient Condition

Back 6

The argument treats a characteristic known to be true of one class of things as if that characteristic were unique to that class.

Front 7

Mistaking a Sufficient Condition for a Necessary Condition

Back 7

The argument fails to establish that a condition under which a phenomenon is said to occur is the only condition under which a phenomenon occurs.

Front 8

Mistaking a Sufficient Condition for a Necessary Condition

Back 8

The argument assumes that if one factor leads to a certain result, then no other factors can possibly lead to that result.

Front 9

Mistaking a Sufficient Condition for a Necessary Condition

Back 9

The argument presents one possible solution to a problem as the only solution to that problem.

Front 10

Mistaking a Sufficient Condition for a Necessary Condition

Back 10

The argument confuses being an adequate solution with being a required solution.

Front 11

Circular Reasoning

Back 11

The argument's conclusion is identical to one of its premises

Front 12

Circular Reasoning

Back 12

The argument attempts to support its conclusion solely by restating that conclusion in other words.

Front 13

Circular Reasoning

Back 13

The argument rephrases its conclusion without offering any support for it.

Front 14

Circular Reasoning

Back 14

The argument draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim given in support of that conclusion.

Front 15

Circular Reasoning

Back 15

The argument offers, in place of support for its conclusion, a mere restatement of that conclusion.

Front 16

Circular Reasoning

Back 16

The overall conclusion reached merely repeats the evidence offered.

Front 17

Circular Reasoning

Back 17

The argument assumes what it seeks to establish.

Front 18

Circular Reasoning

Back 18

The argument presupposes what it sets out to conclude.

Front 19

Circular Reasoning

Back 19

The argument takes for granted what it is trying to prove.

Front 20

Circular Reasoning

Back 20

The argument is a circular argument made up of an opening claim followed by a conclusion that merely paraphrases that claim.

Front 21

Circular Reasoning

Back 21

The argument attempts to justify its conclusion by citing reasons that people would find plausible only if they were already convinced the conclusion was true.

Front 22

Circular Reasoning

Back 22

The argument contains a premise that is implausible unless the conclusion is presumed to be true.

Front 23

Circular Reasoning

Back 23

The argument precludes the possibility of disconfirming evidence.

Front 24

Circular Reasoning

Back 24

The argument disallows in principle any evidence that would disconfirm its conclusion.

Front 25

Ambiguous Word Usage

Back 25

The argument uses a key term ambiguously.

Front 26

Ambiguous Word Usage

Back 26

The argument draws a conclusion based on equivocal language.

Front 27

Ambiguous Word Usage

Back 27

The argument unfairly exploits an ambiguity in a word by treating two different meanings of the word as if they were equivalent.

Front 28

Ambiguous Word Usage

Back 28

The argument inappropriately uses language that is vague

Front 29

Ambiguous Word Usage

Back 29

The argument bases its conclusion on an ambiguous interpretation of a key word.

Front 30

Ambiguous Word Usage

Back 30

The argument depends upon the use of an imprecise term.

Front 31

Ambiguous Word Usage

Back 31

The argument relies on two different uses of a pivotal phrase.

Front 32

Ambiguous Word Usage

Back 32

The argument equivocates with respect to an important term.

Front 33

Ambiguous Word Usage

Back 33

The argument uses a key phrase in two different senses.

Front 34

Ambiguous Word Usage

Back 34

The argument incorrectly relies on words whose meanings are vague or imprecise.

Front 35

Ambiguous Word Usage

Back 35

The argument allows a pivotal expression to shift its meaning over the course of the argument.

Front 36

Ambiguous Word Usage

Back 36

The argument interprets an ambiguous claim in one way in one part of the argument and in another way in another part of the argument.

Front 37

Ambiguous Word Usage

Back 37

The argument fails to distinguish between two distinct senses of a key term.

Front 38

Ambiguous Word Usage

Back 38

The argument makes crucial use of a concept without defining it.

Front 39

Ambiguous Word Usage

Back 39

The argument involves an equivocation, in that an important word is allowed to shift its meaning during the course of the argument.

Front 40

Misinterpreting a Key Term

Back 40

The argument draws a conclusion based on the misinterpretation of an important term.

Front 41

Unfairly Redefining a Key Term

Back 41

The argument proceeds by redefining a term in a way that is favorable to the argument.

Front 42

Unfairly Redefining a Key Term

Back 42

The argument unreasonably extends the application of a key term.