classic flaws

the author misreads the conditional relationship

takes the necessary as the sufficient, or the sufficient as the necessary

two things occurring together doesn't mean that one thing causes the second

the omitted options:

1. no relationship

2. backwards causation

3. third factor causing both things

something being true of the parts doesn't make it true of the whole

something being true of the whole doesn't make it true of the parts

takes an attribute of a particular entity and either applies it to all aspects of that particular entity or all members of that entity

LSAT surveys are usually flawed

biased questions, biased samples, small samples, lying respondents, other surveys with conflicting results may exist

makes a comparative judgment between, or draws a conclusion from, two groups that are fundamentally different

lack of evidence doesn't prove something false

proof of evidence doesn't prove something true

draws a conclusion from someone's beliefs through implying that they believe something that they actually may not

assuming that only two options exist when there may be more

limiting a spectrum; limiting options

deliberately misrepresents and weakens an argument to make it easier to attack

attacks the proponent of an argument, rather than the argument itself

uses the conclusion as support for itself

illicitly changes the meaning of a key term throughout the argument

uses (usually non-expert and unsubstantiated) opinions to draw a factual conclusion

invalid appeal to authority

invalid appeal to public opinion

the premises are totally unrelated to the conclusion

premises about percentages cannot lead to conclusions about raw numbers

premises about raw numbers cannot lead to conclusions about percentages

this is because we cannot be sure that the group size doesn't change; (if the size stays the same, these type of arguments can be valid)