LSAT Argument Flaw Identification 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Economist: Countries that have free trade agreements tend to have higher GDPs. Clearly, free trade agreements cause economic growth. What flaw does this argument commit?
- It mistakes a correlation between two variables for a causal relationship (Correct answer)
- It generalizes from an unrepresentative set of countries
- It uses ambiguous language to equivocate on 'growth'
- It appeals to the authority of economic consensus
Correct answer: It mistakes a correlation between two variables for a causal relationship
Wealthier countries may be more likely to enter trade agreements, reversing or complicating any supposed causal direction.
Question 2: Teacher: Students who read more score higher on standardized tests. To improve test scores, we should require all students to read more. What is the flaw?
- It assumes the correlation reflects causation and that mandating reading replicates natural reading habits (Correct answer)
- It commits a hasty generalization from one classroom study
- It presents a false dichotomy between reading and other study methods
- It attacks students who do not voluntarily read
Correct answer: It assumes the correlation reflects causation and that mandating reading replicates natural reading habits
Students who read more may have other advantageous traits; mandating reading for all students may not reproduce those gains.
Question 3: Philosopher: Freedom of speech is good because it allows people to say what they want, and saying what one wants is the very definition of freedom of speech. What flaw is present?
- Equivocation — using 'freedom' in two incompatible senses
- Circular reasoning — the conclusion is embedded in the premises (Correct answer)
- Straw man — misrepresenting restrictions on speech
- False dichotomy — ignoring limits on free speech
Correct answer: Circular reasoning — the conclusion is embedded in the premises
The argument defines freedom of speech as saying what one wants and then uses that same idea to prove freedom of speech is good, going in a circle.
Question 4: Doctor: This patient took herbal supplements and recovered from her cold. The supplements must have cured her. What is the flaw?
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc — assuming recovery after supplements means the supplements caused recovery (Correct answer)
- Hasty generalization — drawing broad conclusions from one patient
- Ad hominem — dismissing conventional medicine without argument
- Equivocation — using 'cure' to mean both treatment and recovery
Correct answer: Post hoc ergo propter hoc — assuming recovery after supplements means the supplements caused recovery
Colds typically resolve on their own; the patient may have recovered regardless of the supplements.
Question 5: Lawyer: My client has no criminal record, comes from a good family, and is well-liked in the community. Therefore, he could not have committed this crime. What is the flaw?
- It uses irrelevant personal characteristics to draw a conclusion about a specific act (Correct answer)
- It commits a false analogy between criminal record and current behavior
- It denies the antecedent by assuming good standing negates guilt
- It presents a slippery slope from good reputation to acquittal
Correct answer: It uses irrelevant personal characteristics to draw a conclusion about a specific act
Positive character traits are not incompatible with committing a crime and don't constitute evidence about whether this specific act occurred.
Question 6: Pundit: Senator Lee voted against the education bill. She must not care about children. What is the primary flaw?
- It assumes that opposing one policy is equivalent to opposing the underlying value (Correct answer)
- It attacks Senator Lee's personal character without evidence
- It confuses correlation between voting record and values with causation
- It commits a hasty generalization from one vote to all education positions
Correct answer: It assumes that opposing one policy is equivalent to opposing the underlying value
Voting against a specific bill could reflect concerns about cost, implementation, or alternative approaches rather than indifference to children.
Question 7: Coach: Our star player says the team's new strategy is flawed. But she's just upset about losing playing time. We can ignore her criticism. What flaw is illustrated?
- Ad hominem — dismissing an argument by attributing biased motives to the speaker (Correct answer)
- Straw man — exaggerating the player's concerns to make them easier to dismiss
- Circular reasoning — assuming the strategy is good to dismiss criticism of it
- False dichotomy — suggesting the player is either right or just complaining
Correct answer: Ad hominem — dismissing an argument by attributing biased motives to the speaker
Even if the player has personal reasons for criticism, those motivations don't automatically invalidate the substance of her tactical analysis.
LSAT Argument Flaw Identification 4
Economist: Countries that have free trade agreements tend to have higher GDPs.
Clearly, free trade agreements cause economic growth.
What flaw does this argument commit?