"Argument assumes what it sets out to prove"

NotHermione
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:51 pm

"Argument assumes what it sets out to prove"

Postby NotHermione » Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:13 pm

I've been drilling the Cambridge Flaw LR packet, in conjunction with the Trainer, and I keep seeing "argument assumes what it sets out to prove" as an answer choice. I've yet to find a question where that option was a correct answer, but would love to see how it would apply as a correct answer. Can anyone think of a question where such an answer choice is correct? I have every published LSAT so no test is off limits.

Thanks!

Nicolena.
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 12:44 am

Re: "Argument assumes what it sets out to prove"

Postby Nicolena. » Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:22 pm

NotHermione wrote:I've been drilling the Cambridge Flaw LR packet, in conjunction with the Trainer, and I keep seeing "argument assumes what it sets out to prove" as an answer choice. I've yet to find a question where that option was a correct answer, but would love to see how it would apply as a correct answer. Can anyone think of a question where such an answer choice is correct? I have every published LSAT so no test is off limits.

Thanks!


Refers to circular reasoning.....

http://www.powerscore.com/crbible/flt_1.cfm

http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/lr_ ... soning.cfm

HTH

NotHermione
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:51 pm

Re: "Argument assumes what it sets out to prove"

Postby NotHermione » Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:52 pm

This is wonderful, thanks!

User avatar
Christine (MLSAT)
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: "Argument assumes what it sets out to prove"

Postby Christine (MLSAT) » Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:49 pm

Examples of this as a correct answer are a bit hard to come by. It pops up all the time as an incorrect answer, but only relatively rarely as a correct one. My theory is that that is simply because arguments with that flaw are a little difficult to write well unless the flaw is painfully obvious.

A good example, though, is PT49-S2-Q23.

ioannisk
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:38 am

Re: "Argument assumes what it sets out to prove"

Postby ioannisk » Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:33 pm

Christine (MLSAT) wrote:Examples of this as a correct answer are a bit hard to come by. It pops up all the time as an incorrect answer, but only relatively rarely as a correct one. My theory is that that is simply because arguments with that flaw are a little difficult to write well unless the flaw is painfully obvious.

A good example, though, is PT49-S2-Q23.

are you some sort of machine that memorizes the exactly place where each question is or do you have a book infront of you?

User avatar
Christine (MLSAT)
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: "Argument assumes what it sets out to prove"

Postby Christine (MLSAT) » Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:18 am

ioannisk wrote:
Christine (MLSAT) wrote:Examples of this as a correct answer are a bit hard to come by. It pops up all the time as an incorrect answer, but only relatively rarely as a correct one. My theory is that that is simply because arguments with that flaw are a little difficult to write well unless the flaw is painfully obvious.

A good example, though, is PT49-S2-Q23.

are you some sort of machine that memorizes the exactly place where each question is or do you have a book infront of you?


The rumors of my robotic origins have been greatly exaggerated....


Actually, I just really find circular reasoning to be an interesting flaw, for precisely the reason I gave above - shows up all the time as an incorrect answer, only rarely as the correct answer. So, when I come across an example, I make a note. In my copy of PT49, I actually have a note above that question in big pink letters:
RARE CIRCULAR REASONING EXAMPLE!!


Yeah....I'm a geek.... :oops:

User avatar
ScottRiqui
Posts: 3640
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:09 pm

Re: "Argument assumes what it sets out to prove"

Postby ScottRiqui » Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:37 am

Christine (MLSAT) wrote:

The rumors of my robotic origins have been greatly exaggerated....


Actually, I just really find circular reasoning to be an interesting flaw, for precisely the reason I gave above - shows up all the time as an incorrect answer, only rarely as the correct answer. So, when I come across an example, I make a note. In my copy of PT49, I actually have a note above that question in big pink letters:
RARE CIRCULAR REASONING EXAMPLE!!


Yeah....I'm a geek.... :oops:


Nah, you LSAT-prep types are machines! But I agree - it's the "oddball" questions that stick with you. I once asked a tutor if there had ever been a game with a rule that could NOT be triggered because it would make the game unsolvable. He knew one right off the top of his head (although he did have to look up which test it was from), and I've never found another.

User avatar
Clearly
Posts: 4166
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: "Argument assumes what it sets out to prove"

Postby Clearly » Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:48 am

Too lazy to look it up, are we talking about the correll is a bad writer, we know because his writing sucks question?
Only pick this answer if you can damn well prove it. It's gotta be wrong 99.5% of the time.

LMD
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:00 am

Re: "Argument assumes what it sets out to prove"

Postby LMD » Fri Feb 07, 2014 7:28 pm

When it comes up as a correct answer, it's almost always with the conclusion as the contrapositive of one of the premises.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests