Tag Archive: fallacies

BPPaaron-lsat-blog-bad-analogies
/ / /

Bad Analogies Are a Lot Like Questions About Dinosaurs

If you were training to run a race, it wouldn’t be a good idea to work out like crazy one day a week and loaf the rest. Studying for the LSAT, like training for a race, involves building up skills over time. So you shouldn’t cram your LSAT studying on the weekends but instead spread it out over time.

There, I just made an analogy.

BPPaaron-lsat-blog-stage-three
/ / / /

Mastering the Third Stage of Your LSAT Studies

The February LSAT is growing nearer and so Blueprint LSAT classes are getting into the last few lessons with new material. In the last few months, we’ve gone over what to cover in the first and second stages of your studies. Now let’s talk about the big and important things to focus on in the third stage.

BPPlaura-lsat-blog-second-stage
/ / / /

Mastering the Second Stage of Your LSAT Studies

A few weeks ago, we gave you an outline of what you should focus on during the first stage of your LSAT studies. Today we’re going to give you a low down on what to focus on during the second stage.

Santa’s made his list and checked it twice, and students in Blueprint LSAT’s Winter classes are getting a special gift this holiday season — the gift of starting a new family of Logical Reasoning questions! (The verdict is still out on whether this means they’ve been naughty or nice.)

/ /

Watch a Compilation of Fallacies From the 10/13 Democratic Debate

Check out Democratic Presidential candidates’ most memorable fallacious statements from October 13th’s Democratic Debate on CNN. Just so you know — These videos a part of our continuous series where we will analyze fallacies in both Republican and Democratic debates. For a detailed explanation about our methodologies, thought process, and fallacy definitions check out our

/ /

Logical Fallacies and the NBA Playoffs

We’re getting deep into the NBA playoffs. You may be tempted to avoid studying for the LSAT by watching these games, but with just about a month before the June exam, there isn’t a moment to waste. Fortunately, you can multitask and get some much-needed review of the common fallacies by paying close attention to the commentators in this series. Sports commentators fall victim to a lot of logical fallacies. This is especially true for TNT color man Reggie Miller. Here are some examples from the first-round Spurs-Clippers series …

Hack-a-Jordan
In this series, the Spurs coach Gregg Popovich frequently employed the controversial Hack-a-Jordan strategy. This involves Pop sending one of his bench-riding scrubs out to deliberately foul star Clippers center DeAndre Jordan, and send him to the free throw line for two unobstructed shots. Why do this?

/ / /

Law Student Perspective: Deflategate

Hey there, sports fans! Today’s post is dedicated to a topic that has dominated headlines and social media for the last week—Deflategate. You’ll get perspective from one law student (me) on fallacies and misinterpretations from the media, as well as the potential ramifications for the Patriots organization.

Before we go any further, there’s one pet peeve I feel compelled to address: this habit of adding “gate” to the end of any word associated with a scandal really needs to stop. Not only does it not make sense (Watergate was the actual name of the hotel where the Nixon scandal began—it wasn’t Watergate-gate), but it is also an unoriginal way for the media to sensationalize an issue without putting in any effort.

/ / /

Exclusivity Fallacies: Either You Read This Post or You Flunk the LSAT

You might’ve been here before: you’re trying to explain to your deluded Bay Area friends that Colin Kaepernick is not – and will never be – an elite quarterback.

“He throws when he should run. He runs when he should throw. He’s just plain dumb…”

Your friends are aghast, and they pull their trump card: Kaepernick had a 4.0 GPA in college, and scored phenomenally high on the Wonderlic Cognitive Ability Test before the NFL draft. Thus, they think they’ve established that you’re unequivocally wrong. And of course, they proclaim, that means they are right.

Nah.

BPProbert-lsat-blog-ad-hominem-logical-fallacy
/ / / /

Learn to Identify the Ad Hominem Fallacy, You Jerk

Everyone knows you should never take health instructions from an overweight doctor. Don’t go see the new Tom Cruise film — he’s a Scientologist. And never, but never, take lawn-upkeep advice from one of them Libertarians.

Each of these arguments rely on the same logical fallacy: Ad Hominem. They’re common, and if you’ve ever watched Glenn Beck you probably appreciate the need for their dismissal.

We have something of a tendency to allow these fallacies to corrupt our thinking in standard discourse — we may look less favorably on New York’s financial regulation after learning of Elliot Spitzer’s prostitution scandal, for example. Ultimately, however, arguments on the LSAT should be judged on their merit, not on the alleged character of the arguer.

BPProbert-lsat-blog-composition-fallacy-part-to-whole
/ / / / /

Common LSAT Logical Fallacies: Composition

Have you ever heard that inane little riddle, “Which weighs more, a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers?” It’s gotta be bricks, they’re way heavier. Right?

The crux of this pissant’s play is the “ton,” of course; we’ve already established that their weights are equivalent. Thus, neither weighs more than the other. So why does anybody ever fall for something so silly?

We fall for it because we’re seduced by the Composition Fallacy. We believe, erroneously, that the things the ton is composed of has bearing on the weight of the whole. Such part-to-whole reasoning is not justified, for the same reason that you can’t make assumptions about a whole population based on the small subsection of people you’ve met.

BPPlaura-lsat-blog-lsat-real-life-flaws-affluenza
/ / / / /

LSAT in Real Life: Finding Flaws in the Affluenza Defense

If you’ve been living under a rock (or studiously avoiding news articles on this story, as I had been unti I sat down to write this LSAT blog post), you might not have heard about the “affluenza” hoopla that hit the news last week.

Here’s the quick rundown of the story: A 16-year-old boy in Texas was driving with a BAC level three times the legal limit when he lost control of his truck and killed four nearby pedestrians. When he was on trial for manslaughter, the defense attorneys argued that he needed rehabilitation, not jail time, because his wealthy parents hadn’t taught him a sense of personal responsibility. A witness for the defense said the kid had “affluenza” – he’d been taught that money could solve any and all problems.