Question 1

What is the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy, and how does it appear on the LSAT?

Accepted Answer

It assumes that because event B followed event A, A caused B. On the LSAT, arguments commit this flaw when they treat mere temporal sequence as proof of causation.

Question 2

What is the 'correlation vs. causation' fallacy in LSAT Logical Reasoning?

Accepted Answer

The argument treats a statistical correlation between two variables as proof that one causes the other, ignoring that both could be caused by a third factor or the relationship could be coincidental.

Question 3

How does 'confusing cause and effect' differ from the post hoc fallacy on the LSAT?

Accepted Answer

Confusing cause and effect reverses an established causal relationship (e.g., concluding A caused B when B actually caused A), while post hoc merely infers causation from temporal sequence without reversing a known relationship.

Question 4

What flaw does an LSAT argument commit when it ignores a common cause explanation?

Accepted Answer

The argument assumes a direct causal link between two phenomena without considering that a third, unmentioned factor could be independently causing both, making the claimed causal relationship spurious.

Question 5

What is the fallacy of 'affirming the consequent,' and why is it a flaw?

Accepted Answer

Given 'If A then B,' affirming the consequent incorrectly concludes A from the fact that B is true. It is flawed because B could be true for reasons unrelated to A.

LSAT Flawed Reasoning: Master the 27 Most Tested Logical Fallacies

Also Included in the Study Bundle

Practice Tests

Study Guides

Match Game

Try These Cards

Want to keep studying?

Related Study Decks

LSAT Argument Structure

LSAT Formal Logic Mastery

LSAT Inference & Assumption Flashcards

LSAT Law School Admission Test — Complete Bundle

LSAT Logic Games Mastery

LSAT Logical Reasoning Mastery

Unlock the Full LSAT Law School Admission Test Study Bundle