The "Circular Reasoning" or "Begging Question" is still not very clear to me. Can someone help me with this by giving me a real test question? Thanks!

Restates the premise in the conclusion

Hi there, In the second example question in Mullen's proposal. We go with answer B. What about thinking it like this; Answer A is right because he is effected in the outcome of his own policy (negative or positive - he is just effected) and we don't need to assume anything. To make answer B right we have to assume something! Isn't it a stretch to assume that the Dr would lose if the proposal becomes a reality? Just because he is a heavy smoker why does that tell us he will lose by this policy? (we don't know he smokes in public places) Maybe he didn't smoke in public places before the policy became effective and wont be affected by the policy at all. Why assume something if we can answer the question by going with the facts given. Mullen's proposal if you had a capital gain = (he had) will be effected. Smith's proposal - working parent (he is) will be effected. Dr Han's Ban on smoking in public places = (Does he?) Heavy smoker doesn't necessarily tells us about where he smokes. The flawed reasoning is more similar to A if we look at the fact that he gets effected in the policy he is proposing albeit not in the same way one is negative and one is positive ....but the flaw in reasoning still matches. VS. answer B we need to bring in an assumption to include Dr in his own policy, something we didn't need to do for Mullen, the reasoning itself changes.

I might be able to help. I will first summarize what you are saying in one sentence. "Mullen and Smith are the ones that will be affected by their own proposals; however, we don't know if Dr. Han will be affected by his own proposal and 'assuming' that he will be is a stretch." In short, I think you are simply over-thinking. It is true that we don't know a thing about Mr. Han other than he's a heavy smoker, but then, do we know anything about Smith? How can you be certain that Smith will be affected by what he proposes? He might not have any kids yet or he might not have been married yet! With your logic, wouldn't it be a stretch to say that Mr. Smith is the one who will be affected? Critical thinking and being doubtful are good qualities to have when taking the LSAT, but it is also essential to accept what the passage and answer choices tell you. Especially, rarely do LSAT makers want you to doubt the validity of the answer choices. In this question, answer choices A, B, and D all talk about a person's proposal affecting him/herself. A person's proposal negatively affects him/her only in answer choice B as in the passage and thus, B is the answer. Hope this helps.

Main content

Course: LSAT > Unit 1

Lesson 6: Logical Reasoning – Articles

Types of flaws

Google Classroom

Common Flaws

On the LSAT (as well as in real life), you’ll encounter some types of flawed arguments more often than others. This article features some of the flaws that you’re most likely to see on Test Day. This article is in no way comprehensive, but rather a good start in introducing some typical flaws.

The faster you can recognize these common flaws, the more time you'll be able to save if you encounter them on Test Day

Where am I most likely to use my knowledge of common flaws?

You'll often encounter classic flaws in the arguments and choices in these Logical Reasoning question types:

Identify a flaw
Match flaws

And, knowledge about these flaws can sometimes help you identify potential weak points in these question types:

Top tip: Flaws don't fit into one neat, predetermined box. There are many ways to name the same flaw. It simply depends on how you look at the situation. For example:

Lachelle is late for dinner, so she must be stuck in traffic.

It's equally accurate to state the flaw as:

The arguer assumes without warrant that traffic is the only reason Lachelle would be late for dinner

The arguer overlooks the possibility that traffic is not the only reason Lachelle would be late for dinner.

Don't worry, though! As long as you practice and recognize the conceptual flaw in an argument, you'll soon get better at recognizing the different ways that flaws can be described in the choices.

Let's take a look at some classic flaw varieties so that you can recognize and approach them with more confidence on Test Day.

Sampling

Sampling flaws occur when an argument extends limited information and tries to apply it more widely than is reasonable or justifiable.

To detect a potential sampling flaw, look for:

Polls, surveys, or studies
Data or statistics that come from a limited source (such as "one meteorologist")
A shift from specific evidence to a general conclusion (for example, the evidence is about three doctors and the conclusion is about all doctors)
A shift from evidence to conclusion during which the arguer assumes—but doesn't demonstrate—that one is acceptably representative of the other

To confirm that a sample is representative, we're primarily concerned about making sure the sample addresses:

As you work through the next exercise on your own, look for how the sampling flaw appears and how you can detect it on your own.

Sampling flaw example

The more modern archaeologists learn about Mayan civilization, the better they understand its intellectual achievements. Not only were numerous scientific observations and predictions made by Mayan astronomers, but the people in general seem to have had a strong grasp of sophisticated mathematical concepts. We know this from the fact that the writings of the Mayan religious scribes exhibit a high degree of mathematical competence.

The reasoning above is most susceptible to criticism because the author

(Choice A)
fails to provide an adequate definition of the term "intellectual achievement"
(Choice B)
bases a generalization on a sample that is likely to be unrepresentative
(Choice C)
overlooks the impressive achievements of other past civilizations
(Choice D)
relies on two different senses of the term "scientific"
(Choice E)
takes a mere correlation to be evidence of a causal relationship

The conclusion assumes that what is true of Mayan astronomers and religious scribes is true of “the people in general.” This is a problem of an unrepresentative sample. There are at least two reasons why astronomers and scribes could have been unusual compared to Mayans in general. One, the sample size might be too small: if there were only a handful of astronomers and scribes, their characteristics don’t tell us about the whole of the Mayan population. Two, the sample could be biased: astronomers and scribes might differ in relevant ways from the average Mayan.

Do any of the choices pick up on these possibilities?

Ad hominem

You can most easily observe an ad hominem flaw when:

An arguer criticizes someone's actions as a reason to not heed their argument
An arguer criticizes someone's character as a reason to not heed their argument
An arguer criticizes someone's motives as a reason to not heed their argument

It's important to remember that the identity or motives of an arguer don't affect the validity of that person's argument. Corrupt, unintelligent, biased people can make valid arguments. Moreover, if someone’s a hypocrite (they act in a different way than what they advise), it doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

Example: My doctor tells me it's bad for your lungs to smoke cigarettes, but I know he's lying. I saw him furtively smoking a cigarette the other day.

Our next example question should challenge you a bit, since it'll show you several types of ad hominem flaws in the choices. Be precise! Not all ad hominem flaws are created equal.

Ad Hominem example

Mullen has proposed to raise taxes on the rich, who made so much money during the past decade. Yet Mullen's tax records show heavy investment in business during that time and large profits; so Mullen's proposal does not deserve our consideration.

The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the flawed reasoning in which one of the following?

(Choice A)
Do not vote for Smith's proposed legislation to subsidize child care for working parents; Smith is a working parent.
(Choice B)
Do not put any credence in Dr. Han's recent proposal to ban smoking in all public places; Dr. Han is a heavy smoker.
(Choice C)
The previous witness's testimony ought to be ignored; he has been convicted of both forgery and mail fraud.
(Choice D)
Board member Timm's proposal to raise the salaries of the company's middle managers does not deserve to be considered; Timm's daughter is a middle manager at the company's headquarters.
(Choice E)
Dr. Wasow's analysis of the design of this bridge should not be taken seriously; after all, Dr. Wasow has previously only designed factory buildings.

Faulty analogy

A faulty analogy is a type of Scope Shift, in that the arguer compares two things or two situations, but the two things or situations being compared aren't sufficiently alike.

If you detect an analogy in an Assumption or Strengthen/Weaken question, you may need to demonstrate that the two things or situations in the analogy are (or aren't, as in the case of Weaken questions) sufficiently alike.

Faulty analogy

Ms. Smith: I am upset that my son's entire class lost two days of recess because some of the children were throwing raisins in the cafeteria. He was not throwing raisins, and it was clear to everyone just who the culprits were.

Principal: I'm sorry you're upset, Ms. Smith, but your son's situation is like being caught in a traffic jam caused by an accident. People who aren't involved in the accident nevertheless have to suffer by sitting there in the middle of it.

The principal's response to Ms. Smith's complaint is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

(Choice A)
It makes a generalization about all the children in the class which is not justified by the facts.
(Choice B)
It suggests that throwing raisins in the cafeteria produces as much inconvenience as does being caught in a traffic jam.
(Choice C)
It does not acknowledge the fact that a traffic jam following an accident is unavoidable while the mass punishment was avoidable.
(Choice D)
It assumes that Ms. Smith's son is guilty when there is evidence to the contrary which the principal has disregarded.
(Choice E)
It attempts to confuse the point at issue by introducing irrelevant facts about the incident.

The principal's conclusion is actually implied here, rather than explicitly given (since it's a response to Ms. Smith).

Conclusion: [Your son should lose two days of recess along with everyone else]

because

Support: Your son's situation is like being caught in a traffic jam caused by an accident—people who aren't involved in the accident nevertheless have to suffer by sitting there in the middle of it.

What is the principal assuming?

For the principal to stand firm on the decision and compare the son's situation to a driver's situation, the principal must be assuming several things:

Kids throwing raisins is analogous/comparable to a traffic accident (since both situations are the cause for another unpleasant situation)
Losing two days of recess is analogous to a traffic jam (since both are the outcomes that punish everyone involved)

Do you see a problem with either of these assumptions?

We should always ask whether situations are sufficiently comparable, when faced with an analogy on the LSAT.

Throwing raisins isn't necessarily sufficiently comparable to an accident, since one is a purposeful act, and the other could very well be an innocent accident.
Punishing all of the students isn't necessarily sufficiently comparable to a traffic jam, since the first one is purposeful and the second one is inevitable.

Which choice describes one of these two issues?

Summary of common flaws

This table includes the flaw types we discussed above, as well as a few others that are less common. Feel free to bookmark this article in your browser so that you can review it from time to time! This list is not meant to be comprehensive, but rather a great starting point for you to understand a good portion of LSAT flaws.

Top tip: Make your own! Try to create your own examples to illustrate each flaw. It's a great exercise to demonstrate your understanding!

Flaw	Explanation
Causation/correlation	This is an important type of overlooked possibility, in which the arguer takes two things that happen at the same time (correlation) and concludes that one of those things caused the other (causation). The arguer overlooks two important possibilities: 1) a third, unaccounted-for thing could actually be the cause, and 2) the cause-and-effect could actually be in the reverse order of what the arguer believes. Example: Last summer, ice cream sales decreased while homicide rates more than doubled in this region. We should look into selling more ice cream in order to keep people safer.
Sampling	The arguer draws a general conclusion based on what's true about an inappropriate or biased sample. Example: Everyone I know wants to quit their job, so this country is headed for an employment crisis.
Ad hominem	The arguer attacks another arguer instead of the argument itself. The identity or motives of an arguer don't affect the validity of that person's argument. Example: My doctor tells me it's bad for your lungs to smoke cigarettes, but I know he's lying. I saw him furtively smoking a cigarette the other day.
Quantity versus percent	The arguer treats quantities and percents of something as if they're interchangeable, but percents by themselves don't tell you anything about actual numbers. Example: 10% of the people with Disease X died last year, whereas 50% of the people with Disease Y died last year. Clearly, Disease Y is hurting our population growth more than Disease X is. (But what if 1,000,000 people had Disease X and only 4 people had Disease Y?)
Lack of evidence as proof	The arguer takes a lack of evidence for a conclusion as if that conclusion is definitely wrong. Also known as taking an absence of evidence for "evidence of absence". Example: Alien life has never been discovered, so it's clear that alien life doesn't exist.
False dichotomy	The arguer acts like there are only two choices, when in fact it isn't an "either/or" situation. Example: If you're not with us, then you're against us. The arguer is overlooking the possibility that someone could remain neutral.
Possible vs. certain	The speaker assumes that because something is possible, then it'll happen. Example: Last year we didn't have enough budget money for employee raises, but this year there's plenty of money in the budget. So, it's clear that the company will give out raises this year.
Circular reasoning	Also known as "begging the question", circular reasoning is when the arguer assumes that his or her conclusion is already true when attempting to prove that same conclusion. Example: Duplicity is an unattractive characteristic, since it's repulsive to lie and deceive.
Equivocation	The arguer uses a potentially ambiguous term in more than one sense and consequently misleads the reader. Example: A feather is light, and what's light can't be dark, so a feather can't be dark.

Your turn

Using what you've learned in this article, try a mixed group of practice questions. Break the arguments into conclusion and evidence, and look for clues that may signal one of the classic flaws we covered.

Flaws

Politician: My opponent says our zoning laws too strongly promote suburban single-family dwellings and should be changed to encourage other forms of housing like apartment buildings. Yet he lives in a house in the country. His lifestyle contradicts his own argument, which should therefore not be taken seriously.

The politician's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that

(Choice A)
its characterization of the opponent's lifestyle reveals the politician's own prejudice against constructing apartment buildings
(Choice B)
it neglects the fact that apartment buildings can be built in the suburbs just as easily as in the center of the city
(Choice C)
it fails to mention the politician's own living situation
(Choice D)
its discussion of the opponent's lifestyle is irrelevant to the merits of the opponent's argument
(Choice E)
it ignores the possibility that the opponent may have previously lived in an apartment building

Flaws

Pundit: The only airline providing service for our town announced that because the service is unprofitable it will discontinue this service next year. Town officials have urged the community to use the airline's service more frequently so that the airline will change its decision. There is no reason to comply with their recommendation, however, for just last week these same officials drove to an out-of-town conference instead of flying.

The pundit's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it presumes, without providing justification, that

(Choice A)
increasing the number of tickets sold without increasing ticket prices will be sufficient to make continued air service economically feasible
(Choice B)
suspending service and losing money by continuing service are the airline's only options
(Choice C)
the town officials paid for their trip with taxpayers' money rather than their own money
(Choice D)
ground transportation is usually no less expensive than airplane transportation
(Choice E)
if the town officials did not follow their own advice then that advice is not worth following

Here, the pundit commits an ad hominem flaw of attacking the officials' actions as a way of discrediting their argument. Even though the officials are acting hypocritically (by acting against their own advice), that doesn't mean that their advice is wrong. Therefore, the conclusion that there's no reason to comply with their recommendation, doesn't follow from the support.

Notice that the question already tells us how to think about this flaw. What does the pundit presume without justification? The pundit assumes that because the officials act against their own advice, their advice isn't correct.

Which choice matches this prediction?

Want to join the conversation?

Sort by:

Ari S
Posted 6 years ago. Direct link to Ari S's post “Hi there, In the second ...”
Hi there,

In the second example question in Mullen's proposal. We go with answer B.

What about thinking it like this; Answer A is right because he is effected in the outcome of his own policy (negative or positive - he is just effected) and we don't need to assume anything.

To make answer B right we have to assume something! Isn't it a stretch to assume that the Dr would lose if the proposal becomes a reality? Just because he is a heavy smoker why does that tell us he will lose by this policy? (we don't know he smokes in public places) Maybe he didn't smoke in public places before the policy became effective and wont be affected by the policy at all. Why assume something if we can answer the question by going with the facts given.

Mullen's proposal if you had a capital gain = (he had) will be effected.
Smith's proposal - working parent (he is) will be effected.
Dr Han's Ban on smoking in public places = (Does he?) Heavy smoker doesn't necessarily tells us about where he smokes.

The flawed reasoning is more similar to A if we look at the fact that he gets effected in the policy he is proposing albeit not in the same way one is negative and one is positive ....but the flaw in reasoning still matches. VS. answer B we need to bring in an assumption to include Dr in his own policy, something we didn't need to do for Mullen, the reasoning itself changes.
Button navigates to signup pageComment on Ari S's post “Hi there, In the second ...”
(7 votes)
Answer
- lhss3216
  Posted 6 years ago. Direct link to lhss3216's post “I might be able to help. ...”
  I might be able to help. I will first summarize what you are saying in one sentence.
  
  "Mullen and Smith are the ones that will be affected by their own proposals; however, we don't know if Dr. Han will be affected by his own proposal and 'assuming' that he will be is a stretch."
  
  In short, I think you are simply over-thinking. It is true that we don't know a thing about Mr. Han other than he's a heavy smoker, but then, do we know anything about Smith? How can you be certain that Smith will be affected by what he proposes? He might not have any kids yet or he might not have been married yet! With your logic, wouldn't it be a stretch to say that Mr. Smith is the one who will be affected?
  
  Critical thinking and being doubtful are good qualities to have when taking the LSAT, but it is also essential to accept what the passage and answer choices tell you. Especially, rarely do LSAT makers want you to doubt the validity of the answer choices.
  
  In this question, answer choices A, B, and D all talk about a person's proposal affecting him/herself. A person's proposal negatively affects him/her only in answer choice B as in the passage and thus, B is the answer.
  
  Hope this helps.
  Comment on lhss3216's post “I might be able to help. ...”
  (14 votes)
Xun Li
Posted 6 years ago. Direct link to Xun Li's post “The "Circular Reasoning" ...”
The "Circular Reasoning" or "Begging Question" is still not very clear to me. Can someone help me with this by giving me a real test question? Thanks!
Button navigates to signup pageComment on Xun Li's post “The "Circular Reasoning" ...”
(9 votes)
Answer
- drouckama
  Posted a year ago. Direct link to drouckama's post “Restates the premise in t...”
  Restates the premise in the conclusion
  Comment on drouckama's post “Restates the premise in t...”
  (3 votes)
Muhammad
Posted a year ago. Direct link to Muhammad's post “You'll often encounter cl...”
You'll often encounter classic flaws in the arguments and choices in these Logical Reasoning question types:
Identify a flaw
Match flaws

Here What is meant by "classic Flaws"? Flaws and classic flaws are different because the flaw definition is well explained above.
Button navigates to signup pageComment on Muhammad's post “You'll often encounter cl...”
(1 vote)
Answer
Zach Unsell
Posted 4 years ago. Direct link to Zach Unsell's post “I was also split between ...”
I was also split between A and B on the Mullen question. I ended up going with B because:

Mullen: performed an action (investing)
Smith: is just Smith with a Kid (no actions)
Han: performs an action (smoking)

The argument was attacking Mullen on the basis of his actions, not the basis of his being. To me, Smith was being attacked because of who he was, not something that he does.

I didn't notice the positive/negative relationship, either. I guess I just got lucky there.
Button navigates to signup pageButton navigates to signup page
(1 vote)
Answer