Try 5 free practice questions with instant feedback. See how ready you are.
Question 1
What is the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy, and how does it appear on the LSAT?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.