Logical reasoning PrepTest 154 · Section 2 · Question 14

Incorrect. There's nothing fallacious about using evidence that's impossible to disprove. It might make a debate opponent's job harder, but it isn't in itself a fallacy.

Incorrect. The argument hasn't committed this fallacy. Both instances of the term "student" referred to high school students in the Superintendent's district.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't refer to a single instance. It references data about the overall student population in the district.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
The Superintendent says 11% of students drop out, but only 1% of students with internships do. So, it must be the case that internships somehow prevent students from dropping out.

Answer Anticipation:
Here's a classic fallacy of correlation vs. causation. It's easy to imagine any number of other reasons for the correlation between internships and lower dropout rates. For example, perhaps students who seek out internships are more intrinsically motivated to succeed in high school. Or, students with internships don't need paying work to help support their families. If the only evidence for a causal conclusion is an observed correlation, this always signifies a fallacy of causation. Expect the correct answer choice to point it out.

Answer Explanation:
Perfect. This is an exact description of a fallacy of causation, which is the biggest flaw in this argument.

Key Takeaway:
Causation is a key concept throughout the logical reasoning section, also appearing in lots of Strengthen and Weaken questions. Not understanding causation will inevitably lead to a lower LSAT score (See it?). If you struggle with this, try noticing causal relationships wherever you run across them in everyday life, like when some talking head on the news makes an argument about what one or another politician's tax reform proposal would do to the economy.

Incorrect. Common trap answer. This answer choice describes circular reasoning, which is actually one of the least common flaws on the LSAT (and easy to identify when it does show up). Panicked students who skipped the anticipation step tend to get ensnared by this trap, because it's so vague-sounding it looks appealing when you're flummoxed. Unless you've anticipated circular reasoning before looking at the answer choices, never choose this.