Loophole LSAT

Sufficient Assumption

- Proves the conclusion 100% true. - Ac proves the assumption to be true thereby proving the conclusion 100% true. Conclusion: The flower will be picked. SA: A alien queen will come down and pick the flower --> proves that the flower will be picked. If SA is true, activates the chain and conclusion is forced to be true and the NA also true. SA can be crazy and outrageous. Powerful

Not Necessarily "Not Must"

0 - 99% includes cannot. Does not include must. Allows for every single possibility except for must. Commonly used o smack down somebody else's statement.

Could "Not impossible"

1 - 100% includes Must. Does not include cannot. All could statements are concluding is that it is not impossible for the conclusion to be true.

Percentages do not equal numbers

1. Author says a percentage went up 2. Author concludes that the associated real number also went up OR 1. Author says a real number went up 2. Author concludes that the associated percentage also went up. Percentages do not equal numbers arguments always assume the group size remains the same. EX: Last year 65% of teenagers were planning on applying to college. This year 75% are. This means more teenagers are applying to college! Not necessarily: there could just be less teenagers in general this year.

Bad Causal Reasoning- Flaw

1. Author sees that two things are correlated 2. Author concludes that one of those things is causing the other. Omitted Options: New factor, no relationship, backward causation. EX: When I ate the sandwich from that restaurant it made me sick. What if something else made you sick?

Irrelevant - Flaw

1. Author supplies a few premises 2. Author concludes something that is unrelated to those premises EX: Dogs are inherently kind creatures with loving natures. Therefore, it is imperative that every family has a dog. Note: Dogs being kind and loving doesn't have anything to do with whether everyone should have one.

Bad Conditional Reasoning - Flaw

1. There are conditional premises 2. Author concludes something by reading the conditional premises backward without negation. (mistaken reversal) OR 2. Author concludes something by negating the conditional premises and reading it forward (mistaken negation) EX: Vegan --> Healthy --> Happy Mistaken Reversal: Happy --> Vegan Mistaken Negation: -Vegan --> -Happy

A -m-> B --> C Valid Inference of most of A is B and B is C

A -m-> C Most A is C

A <-S-> b --> C Valid Inference of some of A is B. And B is C.

A <-s-> C Some of A is C

Either/Or

At least one is selected. Forces us to include at least one of the two things it targets. You must have at least one of the pair. Negate one half of the statement and put it as the SC. Place the other half as the NC. EX: Either I will stare into the distance or I will make progress. -Stare --> Make Progress -Progress --> Stare

Attacking an Argument

Attack the premises relationship to one another and to the conclusion, but never question the truth of the premises. Always ask yourself why the conclusion is supposed to be true. Always assume there is something being left out of what the author chose to present. Attack what they aren't telling you.

A-m-> B & A -m-> C Valid Inference of Most of A is B and most of A is C.

B <-s->c Some of B is C

Ad Hominem - Flaw

Bad proponent does not equal bad argument. 1. Someone other than the author makes a claim 2. The author talks about how the other person is somehow awful 3. Author concludes that the other person's argument is false. EX: Bob says that blue cars are more dangerous than red cars and thus should be regulated. But Bob's brother has worked for the red car industry so blue cars are safer. A proponents bias for or against a position does not affect the truth or falsity of that position.

Equivalence of Must Be True

Cannot be False

Negation of Could be True

Cannot be True

Causal Indicators

Cause, responsible for, produced by, factor, leads to, product, effect

Circular Reasoning - Flaw

Circular reasoning is obviously flawed 1. Author concludes something 2. Author supplies premises that assume the conclusion already true. EX: Dogs are smart enough to learn commands, because they are smart they are able to listen to their owners. (Assumes dogs are smart in conclusion and premises) An attempt to prove it otherwise has failed due to the fact that circular reasoning is circular.

Causal Argument

Claims a cause and effect relationship exists. Extremely loophole vulnerable (unless its a really weak possibility conclusion). Because every causal conclusion cherry picks one possible explanation, when we know there are other possible explanations.

Conditional Chains

Conditional statements that have a linkage. The necessary condition of the first statement matched the sufficient condition of the second. EX: if it rains then mushrooms will sprout, if mushrooms sprout then deer will come. If rain --> MS --> Deer will come If rains --> Deer will come

Possibility Premises

Could Premise, Not Necessarily Premise - Weak Evidence

Equivalence of Not Necessarily True

Could be False

Negation of Cannot be True

Could be True

Possibility Conclusions

Could conclusion, not necessarily conclusion - easy to prove. It is easy to prove a possibility conclusion from certainty premises. Have to improve the impossible against the conclusion being possibly true. EX: if the conclusion says lady bugs could live on daises, we must prove that it is actually impossible for them to live on daises. Possibility Premises that support possible conclusions are usually invalid.

Straw Man - Flaw

Cowards argument 1. A claim is made 2. Author responds to an entirely different claim, but pretends they responded to the original claim. Author often responds with "so what you're really saying..." or "so what you mean is..." EX: Arthur: We should no longer allow bikes on the sidewalk, instead we should make room in the budget for bike lanes. Bob: So what you're really saying is that we will be taking the money from sidewalk budgets for bike lanes, which will make it more dangerous for pedestrians.

If and Only If

Doubt Must arrow. Two variables always go hand in hand together. Ex: We will go to the park if and only if you study. If Park --> Study If Study --> Park Park <--> Study

And/Or Conditional Logic

EX: If we eat chips and bread then we will be too full for dinner. EC + B --> -Dinner The activation of the conditional can only occur when BOTH SC are present. If we only ate chips then we don't know about dinner. Contrapostive: And is the contra of or and vice versa. EX: If Dinner --> -EC or -B And: If A and B --> C Contra: -C --> -A or -B (or no both) Or: If A --> B or C Contra: -B and -C --> -A

Not Necessarily

Easier to prove, harder to attack. We just need premises saying we don't have to. Doesn't have to be the case, literally "not must", could be an exception, not guaranteed.

Could

Easier to prove, harder to attack. We just need premises that allow the conclusion stated to be a possibility. Possible, there is a chance, maybe, might, encompasses both something unlikely and likely, may or may not.

Unless Family

Except, until, without,

No, none, nobody, never

Exclusion indicators set up mutually exclusive relationships. Have to chose between two variables, can't have both. Rephrase as if then. EX: Nobody from Canada will start an argument. Canada --> - Argument Argument --> - Canada

Implication - Flaw

Facts do not equal someone believing those facts 1. Someone has a belief 2. Author mentions a factual implication of that belief 3. Author claims that the 'someone' believes the implication of that belief EX: Blair believes that all dogs are fluffy. All fluffy dogs wear bow ties. Blair believes that all fluffy dogs wear bow ties. Just because Blair believes that all dogs are fluffy does not mean she believes that all dogs wear bow ties (even if they do).

Not All

Fancy Some, that some of the target doesn't have the quality described. Ex: not all feathers are blue Feathers <-s-> in caps

Some Family

Few, Many, At least one, several

Intermediate Conclusion

Fulfills the argumentative role of both a premise and a conclusion. Supports the main conclusion and is supported by premises. If you have no reason for why something is true it is a premise.

Equivocation - Flaw

Homonyms Unleashed 1. Author uses a word or idea, intending one of its possible meanings 2. Author concludes something using the other possible meaning of the word or idea. Equivocation happens when the author changes the meaning of the word throughout an argument. EX: All trees have bark. All dogs bark. Therefore, dogs are trees.

If and Only If Family

If but only if, all and only, but not otherwise, when and only when

Necessary Assumption

If the conclusion is true, the NA must also be true. AC will provide the information 'needed' for the assumption to be true. Conclusion relies on this being true in order to be true itself. Conclusion: The flower will be picked NA: the flower is able to be picked. Provable, boring. If C true then this is true. SA --> C --> NA Beautiful queen will come down and pick the flower --> Flower will be picked --> Flower is able to be picked.

Introduces Sufficient Condition

If, Any(time), All, When(ever), Everytime, In Order to, People Who, Each

Conclusion

Judgments the author makes, built upon the arrangement of premises. They are part of the argument you question - usually they can be made invalid through loopholes.

Correlation does not = Causation

Just because two things occur together does not mean that one caused the other.

Survey Problems - Flaw

LSAT surveys are unreliable 1. There is a survey 2. Author concludes things on the survey 3. Lots of things could go wrong - Biased Sample - Biased Questions - Survey Liars - Small Sample Size - Other Contradictory Surveys EX: A survey of adults living in Seattle found that football is a popular past time for those between the ages of 25 and 45. Loophole: What if this is not a representative sample size?

Conditional Dangling Variable

Loophole/flaw: Add a new variable to the conclusion's conditional statement. EX: If dogs are nice they will be adopted. If they are adopted they will be in loving homes. If dogs are nice they will be easy pets to take care of. What if you can't conclude something not linked in the conditional logic?

The Dangling Variable

Loophole/flaw: new words that appear in the conclusion that did not in the premises. What if two things are not necessarily the same?

Argument

Made of premise(s) and conclusions

Negation of Not Necessarily True

Must Be True

Certainty Conclusions

Must Conclusion, cannot conclusion - difficult to prove. Almost always require certainty premises in order to be valid. Certainty premises are in terms of what they can do. Find the gaps between the premises, not the premises themselves. Any gap is a loophole opportunity. You usually can't prove a certainty conclusion from all possibility premises.

Certainty Premises

Must Premises, cannot premises - Strong evidence.

Certainty Power Players the 100% & the 0%

Must and cannot. When you don't see indicators of certainty or uncertainty, this is a sentence that is claiming certainty. Must: the 100% true. No exceptions to what the author is saying. Huge burden of proof and easily attackable with loopholes. Cannot: The 0% Never Never Never. There is no remote chance.

Equivalence of Cannot be True

Must be False

Valid conclusion

Must be true if the premises are true. They're 100% provable. Look for common terms between n two premises and find out what that repetition allows you to conclude. Always part of an argument. EXAMPLE: Premise 1 - Maya won't eat grapefruit. Premise 2- Only those who always eat grapefruit will be committed to the mental institution. Valid: Maya will not be committed to the mental institution.

Equivalence of Could be True

Not Necessarily True

Negation of Must Be True

Not Necessarily True

Inferences

Not part of the argument, something we come up with from the premise set. An inference is a valid conclusion you design yourself, not a conclusion inside an argument.

Appeal Fallacies - Flaw

Opinion does not equal fact 1. Author says that a person or group believes something 2. Author concludes that thing must be true Invalid Appeal to Authority: happens when the author uses a nonexpert opinion to support their conclusion. EX: The swimming instructor believes that construction workers shouldn't have to wear helmets in nonbuilding zones. Therefore, when in nonbuilding zones construction workers don't need to wear their helmets. Invalid Appeal to Public opinion: A high percentage of random people believing anything has very little bearing on whether that is actually true. EX: 75% of people believe that aliens exist. Therefore, it is likely aliens exist.

Overgeneralization - Flaw

Part does not equal all parts 1. Author talks about something having a property 2. Author concludes that a bunch of other things also have that property. EX: Bob was very opinionated in the meeting, so Bob is an opinionated man.

Whole to Part and Part to Whole - Flaw

Parts Do not Equal Whole 1. Author says a member of a group has a property 2. Author concludes that the group itself also has that property or 1. Author concludes that a group has a property 2. Author concludes that a member of that group also has that property. EX: John is a teacher and john is kind. So all teachers must be kind.

Possibility Does not Equal Certainty - Flaw

Power players 1. You can't prove it's true/false therefore it cannot be true/false or 1. There is some evidence it is true/false therefore it must be true/false. EX: It has not been documented that otters contain family groups, therefore otters must not have similar family structures to other mammals. What if we just haven't found evidence of otters having family units yet?

Backward Causation - Omitted Option

Reversing the cause and affect. (Only time we can't do this is when the supposed cause occurs before the effect). EX: What if the cat running away caused john to scream?

Some & Most

Some means any quantity of one or more. 1 to 100% of the group. Some<--> Some cars are safe Cars <-s-> Safe Most means any quantity in the majority. 51% to 100% of the group. Most --> Most otters are cute Otters -m-> Cute

Sufficient Condition

The "if" part of a conditional relationship. If the sufficient occurs then we know the necessary condition occurs. This gets activated and then everything goes according to plan. Sufficient words are usually inclusive, open words. EX: If it RAINS (SC) then mushrooms will sprout. R--> MS

Necessary Condition

The "then part of the conditional. It has to occur at some point if the conditional relationship is activated. But just because the NC occurs doesn't mean the SC has to occur. If the SC happens then the NC HAS to happen too. EX: If it rains then the mushrooms will sprout (nc). R --> MS

Secret Value Judgments

The author just can't assume a convenient definition of loaded words in their conclusion without identifying those words in the premises. What if the value doesn't have that definition?

Invalid Conclusions

The conclusion is not ironclad, it can fall apart using loopholes. What if...? Always assume the author is leaving something out. These conclusions take things for granted in the premises. EX: Avocados & gingerbread both contain nitrogen, nitrogen is an element. Avocados and nitrogen are similar. Loophole: What if avocados and gingerbread are different in every other aspect? This would make the conclusion inaccurate.

Premises

The facts, the evidence. Always accept premises. Always focus on how the premises fit together and are defined by their relationship to the conclusion.

The Loophole

The flip side of the NA. Loophole is calling the author out on the argument's nonsense. "What if"... "destroys argument" - NA --> -C --> -SA Loophole --> -C True --> -SA EX: what if the flower is not able to be picked. Loophole cannot: Negate premises Negate Conclusion

The Omitted Option - No Relationship

The possibility that the two things the author claims are causally connected actually have no relationship at all. LSAT lies by omission. Things can happen independently of one another. EX: John was screaming and the cat ran away. Therefore, John's scream caused the cat to run from him. No relationship: What if John was too far from the cat to scare it? Ways to show no relationship: What if sometimes the cause happens and the effect doesn't? What if sometimes the cause doesn't happen and the effect does? What if the situation is flawed?

Contrapositive

The reversed and negated form of the conditional (original statement), this is a valid relationship. If we know the NC does not occur than we also know the SC did not occur and vice versa. Original: If it rains then the mushrooms will sprout. R --> MS Contrapositive: If there are no mushrooms then there was no rain. -MS --> -R

False Starts - Flaw

The two groups are always inconveniently different 1. There is a study with two groups 2. Author assumes the two groups are the same in all respects except those pointed out as part of the study. 3. Author concludes that the differences in the study results are due to the one key difference the study is focusing on. EX: A study of college women found that those who were more democrat were more likely to be from cities than those from rural areas. What if another thing caused them to be more democratic? Possible family differences? School differences?

Introduces a Necessary Condition

Then, Must, Necessary, Required, Only(if), Depends, Need(to), Have to, Essential, Precondition

False Dichotomy - Flaw

There are more than two options 1. Author outlines two possible options (this step is absent in a limiting spectrum) 2. Author eliminates one of the options 3. Author concludes that the second option must be the case. Limiting Spectrum: You can go up, down, or stay the same. Author concludes only two options. Limiting Options: Pretends there are only two options when there could be more. EX: I only have food in my fridge to eat a salad or chicken. Since I am allergic to chicken I will eat the salad. Ignores the fact you could order food in.

New Factor Causing One or Both - Omitted Option

There can always be a third factor in the mix that caused one or both things to happen. EX: What if john and the cat were both reacting to billy?

Assumed Universal Goals

Things that the author assumes that everyone would want. Never assume that it's common knowledge for everyone to want one of these things. What if they don't want [assumed universal goal]?

Cannot

Tough to prove and easy to attack. Never, impossible in any circumstance, no way.

Must

Tough to prove easy to attack. Powerful premises. Always, every single time, no exceptions ever, you can't get out of doing this.

Most Family

Usually, probably, mostly, more often than not

Nested Claims & Hybrid Arguments

When someone besides the author makes a claim. A description of how someone believes something. If the author concludes anything themselves they will use the nested claim as a premise for the conclusion. If the author does not conclude anything we use the nested claim as a conclusion and attack that with loopholes.

Secret Downsides

When the author compares two things and says one of them is superior without giving the full story. They will say their choice will have a few upsides but the loophole will remind you there is a secret downside they are not considering in their choice. What if the argument's preferred option has a big downside?

Unless

is our conditional exception indicator. Indicates that we're about to see the only way around how things always are. EX: cats are hateful unless they are sleeping. -Cats hateful (against way things always are) --> Cats sleeping (our exception) 1. Target of the unless is the exception, throw it in the NC 2. Other half of the statement is the way things always are. Go against the grain, negate the way things always are and put that as the SC 3. - [the way things always are] --> Exception.