Discussion Thread: Formal Fallacies and the Logic Games Reply

Elizabeth Helle

Hello, class.

I took exam 2LSN03. My raw score was 62, with my reported score being 153. This exam, I answered three additional questions correctly from my first LSAT practice exam.

 Again, the section I did most well in was section four which consisted of reading comprehension questions, which I scored eighteen out of twenty-six questions correctly. This week, I made sure to identify key words prior to answering the questions. For instance, question eight which states, which one of the following statements most accurately summarizes the content of the passage? One key word I took not of initially is accurately and summarizes. Identifying key words aided me in selecting the correct answer. LSAT experts note keywords within the passage and jot down brief notes on their scratch paper to help them focus on the relevant parts of the passage and quickly research the answers to questions. In fact, if you learn to read as strategically as the best experts. Youll find that you can anticipate many, if not most, of the questions even before you read them (Kaplan, 2021)

Just as last week, the section I did the most poorly on was section three which consisted of analytical reasoning questions. In this section, I only got eleven questions out of twenty-three questions correct (which is an improvement from my initial test). This week, I made sure I had scratch paper prior to this section so I was able to break down the questions further. I felt like this section differed much differently from last weeks section regarding the type of questions presented. For section one and two, my score was 16/27 and 17/26. I really focused on time management this week, as well as staying engaged. I stood up and stretched many times to wake myself up. I felt this helped me not have to go back and reread certain parts because I was more awake.

Chapter six of our textbook explained what the fallacy of affirming the consequent is, and chapter seven went into great depth about the distribution of terms and the importance of distribution in legal argument. As Rice states, The fallacy of affirming the consequent makes the logical error of trying to reach a conclusion when the categorical premise affirms the consequent term of the hypothetical premise. One court has described the fallacy this way: This type of inference is an example of affirming the consequent, a classic form of invalid reasoning. Consider the following syllogism: (1) If A is true, then B is true. (2) B is true. (3) Therefore, A is also true. The conclusion that A is true does not logically follow from the premises.

Being aware of what this fallacy looks like will aid us in identifying invalid reasoning within the LSAT. Thus, learning it will allow for an easier analysis of what each prompt is asking and how to find the correct answer.

I am encouraged the change in my score in only just one short week. I look forward to seeing how everyone else improved. As Philippians 4:13 states, I can do all things through him who strengthens me (English Standard Version, 2022)

 

Thank you,

Elizabeth

References

Kaplin, LSAT prep plus, (2022)

Openbible.info. 2022. What Does the Bible Say About Self Improvement?. [online] Available at: <https://www.openbible.info/topics/self_improvement> [Accessed 25 January 2022].

Stephen M Rice, The Force of Logic: Using Formal Logic as a Tool in the Craft of Legal Argument (2017).