Tag Archive: LSAT fallacy

/ / /

Todd Akin: An LSAT Equivocation Fallacy in Action

I don’t think there’s a single person out there with an internet connection or television who hasn’t heard of Missouri Rep. Todd Akin’s stunning comments concerning pregnancy and rape. (Here they are, in case you just woke up from a coma.) Not only does it evince a belief in junk science (which, unsurprisingly, is also reflected in his disbelief in global warming), but it gives us a hint into how his flawed thinking on the subject developed.

First off, after being disavowed by the entire Republican Party, Akin was quick to point out that he misspoke, and he actually meant to say ‘forcible rape.’ As any LSAT prep student can attest, that’s a straight up equivocation fallacy; he treated two words as meaning the same thing, when they actually don’t. When a lot of your job is choosing the right word at the right time, it’s problematic enough that you can’t use the right word. But what’s even more scary is the implications of his equivocation.

/ /

Logical Reasonings / 5.9.12

A) Barack Obama is the first President to publicly endorse same-sex marriage. ABC News.

B) LSAT fallacy alert: Does Mark Zuckerberg’s casual business attire mean he doesn’t care? CNN.

C) Read about one man’s terrifying week-long journey using Bing instead of Google. Slate.

D) Orangutans are just like people. (The younger ones dig iPads.) CBS.

E) These .GIFs have something to say about Obama endorsing same-sex marriage. Tumblr.

/ / / /

Logical Reasonings / 12.19.11

A) Get graphy with a look at the common LSAT fallacy “correlation versus causation.” Graph Jam.

B) Interested in immigration law in New York? Good. They need your help. New York Times.

C) Supply and demand also affects law schools, for better or worse. Above the Law.

D) It’s a busy week in the legal world. Here’s your itinerary. Wall Street Journal.

E) Kim Jong-Il died. Time to take a look at the tall tale life of a not tall dictator. Matador.

/ /

LSAT in Real Life: Weiner Phallus-cies

Did you hear about Congressman Weiner?

Okay, so if we were the New York Times, CNN, or David Letterman, we would be a little late on the Anthony Weiner sexting and tweeting scandal. We’re an LSAT test prep company. The fact that we’re making crotch jokes to illustrate real LSAT concepts deserves some sort of street cred from the blogosphere, doesn’t it? We know that before class begins, most students have a lot of anxiety, and very little accurate information about what the LSAT really tests. Make no mistake, it’s a difficult exam. It’s also a very learnable exam, and we firmly believe that the next three months don’t have to be a drag. Today, I will cover three of the most commonly tested logical fallacies on the LSAT, all within the context of a disgraced congressman’s bulging embarrassment.

/ / / / / /

Our Fallacious World: California’s Proposition 23

When studying for the LSAT it’s easy to think fallacies are akin to other formal definitions and procedures we learn in college; important for a narrowly specified purpose in the short term, but otherwise largely irrelevant to our lives.

At Blueprint, our view is different.  We think fallacious reasoning exists outside of the rarified world of the LSAT and that, at times, it can rear its ugly head and infect even the most level-headed of us.

Various circumstances encourage poor reasoning, but chief among these are politics and religion.  Our etiquette conveniently holds that we shouldn’t talk about such things so that we publicly justify our inchoate intuitions about the existence of god or the wisdom of universal health care.