One key skill tested in the logical reasoning section category of the LSAT is that of building—and tearing down—arguments. This skill can appear on the test in many ways, including:
__________
Making a statement of facts into an argument, either by drawing an inference or by providing support to an unsupported assertion
Finding an additional premise
Presenting a “counter-premise”, i.e., a statement that would serve as a premise in a counter-argument
__________
This skill also plays a significant role in bar exam essay, performance test, and MBE sections.
Check this blog periodically for discussion of the argument-construction/destruction skill, how to develop it, how to spot questions that test it, and how to separate good from bad answer choices.
The naturalist fallacy is a well-known flawed method of reasoning in which it is argued that, since something occurs in nature, that thing is morally acceptable. An example of the naturalist fallacy would be:
Rape occurs in nature. Not only do humans commit rape, but other species commit rape as well. Therefore, rape is acceptable.
While few people would hazard the above argument in polite society, millions of modern citizens use the exact same argument in a different context:
Killing and eating animals occurs in nature. Not only do humans kill and eat animals, but other species kill and eat animals as well. Therefore, killing and eating animals is acceptable.
In technical terms, this fallacy consists of an unwarranted shift between descriptive premises (e.g., rape occurs) and a prescriptive or normative conclusion (e.g., rape is okay). The argument is accordingly invalid. A way to undermine a naturalist fallacy argument is to point out that mere occurrence of an event does not make it right. For instance, in the first example above, the argument is undermined by pointing out that our society has almost universally agreed that rape is unacceptable, even though it occurs.
Bird
2. False Dichotomy Fallacy
The false dichotomy fallacy is a well-known flawed method of reasoning in which two alternative conclusions are assumed to be the only two possible conclusions. An example of the false dichotomy fallacy would be:
John is not an atheist. Therefore, he must be a Christian.
The reasoning is flawed because there are many more than two philosophical or religious positions available to a person. In the context of justifying and perpetuating inhumanity, the false dichotomy fallacy is used in a variety of ways, such as:
Going without protein is not healthy. Therefore, we must eat animals.
In technical terms, this fallacy consists of an unwarranted assumption that there is a disjunctive (i.e., “either/or”) relationship between two terms (e.g., one must either be Christian or atheist). The argument is accordingly invalid. A way to undermine a false dichotomy argument is to point out that there is a third possible conclusion, one which can occur without either of the first two possible conclusions occurring.
For instance, in the first example above, the argument is undermined by pointing out that it is possible for a person to be neither an atheist nor a Christian but rather a Muslim.
3. Name-Of-God Fallacy
The name-of-God fallacy is a well-known flawed method of reasoning in which it is argued that, since a seemingly atrocious act is committed in the name of religion, patriotism, science or some other cause, the act is acceptable. An example of the name of God fallacy would be:
The World Trade Center was destroyed and thousands of people died, but this action was committed in the name of God. Therefore, this action was acceptable.
This form of reasoning is unfortunately common in its usage today. The reasoning is flawed because a person’s motivation for committing an act is not sufficient to justify the act itself. Other examples include:
These dogs were intentionally drowned, but this action was committed for the advancement of science. Therefore, this action was acceptable.
These prisoners were intentionally tortured, but this action was committed in the name of patriotism. Therefore, this action was acceptable.
In technical terms, this fallacy consists of an unwarranted shift from descriptive premises (e.g., the subjective intentions of a perpetrator) to a prescriptive or normative conclusion (e.g., a seemingly atrocious act is not atrocious). The argument is accordingly invalid. It may actually be worse than a bare ends-justify-the-means argument, since the name-of-God fallacy may be used even in the absence an “end” worth pursuing. A way to undermine a name-of-God argument is to point out that an atrocious act remains an atrocious act even when committed by someone who thinks that he or she is serving a cause or ideal.
4. Irrelevant Distinction Fallacy
The irrelevant distinction fallacy is a well-known flawed method of reasoning in which it is argued that, since a difference between two cases can be perceived, different treatment of the two cases is justified. An example of the irrelevant distinction fallacy would be:
Women and men have different chromosomes. Therefore, the legal system should treat women and men differently.
The reasoning is flawed because a mere scientific difference is not by itself sufficient to justify institutionalized legal discrimination. Other examples include:
These people are from a different culture. Therefore, they are inferior to us.
Humans are generally smarter than other animals. Therefore, only humans deserve rights.
These animals were intentionally burned alive, which would be a crime if committed at home. But these animals were intentionally burned alive in a university laboratory; therefore, this act was not a crime.
It is wrong to eat cats or dogs. But cows have hooves rather than paws. Therefore, it is not wrong to eat cows.
In technical terms, this fallacy is simply one of relevance, i.e., the argument assumes without warrant that the premises offered have probative value with respect to the conclusion. The argument is accordingly invalid. Arguments employing fallacies of relevance are particularly easy to shoot down by following the irrelevant premises to some bizarre conclusion. For instance, in the first example above, the argument can be undermined by pointing out that if a mere chromosomal difference were enough to require legal distinction, then every unique individual (except for genetically identical twins) would have to have a one-person legal system made specially for them. Such a situation would render the notion of a “legal system” largely meaningless.
5. Appeal to Tradition
The appeal to tradition fallacy is a well-known flawed method of reasoning in which it is argued that since a seemingly atrocious act is part of a tradition, the act is not an atrocity. An example of the appeal to tradition fallacy would be:
Female genital mutilation (euphemistically called “female circumcision”) seems like an atrocity. But since female genital mutilation is part of the African tradition, female genital mutilation is not an atrocity.
The reasoning is flawed because the mere fact that an act has become a tradition does not make that act acceptable. Other examples include:
Torturing a trapped bull to death seems like an atrocity. But since bull “fighting” is a Spanish tradition, bull “fighting” is not an atrocity.
Torturing an animal to death seems like an atrocity. But this form of torture is part of our religious tradition. Therefore, this form of torture is not an atrocity.
In technical terms, this fallacy is simply one of relevance, i.e., the argument assumes without warrant that the premises offered have probative value with respect to the conclusion. The argument is accordingly invalid. Arguments employing this fallacy can be easily shot down by demonstrating that many traditions have already been abolished because they were, despite being traditions, obviously immoral. Human slavery would be a classic example.
6. Perfect-Voting-Record Fallacy
The perfect-voting-record fallacy is a flawed method of reasoning in which it is assumed that a small set of issues that were expressly considered represent all possible issues that could have been considered. An example of the PVR fallacy would be:
The terrorist regime of Q commits thousands of acts of terrorism every year, but only once has the Q leadership considered a limitation on terrorism. This limitation—which provided that suicide-bombers should not eat garlic—passed unanimously. Therefore, the terrorists of Q have a perfect voting record on terrorism.
While most people would not be duped by the above argument, many well-meaning activists go for the following argument and even use it themselves:
The meat-eaters of political party J kill and eat several thousand animals each year, but only a few limitations on animal-killing have been considered. These limitations—which provide that animals to be killed must not be caged in veal crates—have been unanimously supported by the meat-eaters in political party J. Therefore, the meat-eaters in party J have a perfect voting record for animals.
In technical terms, this fallacy consists of reliance on an unrepresentative sample. Specifically, the argument ignores the potentially thousands of issues that could have been addressed but were not. The argument is accordingly invalid.
A way to undermine a perfect-voting-record argument is to point out that one cannot be said to have a “perfect voting record” on a subject when one has simply failed to vote at all on the major issues pertaining to that subject. For instance, the ancient Sumerians probably never held a vote on the militarization of space, but to conclude that they therefore had a “perfect voting record” on the militarization of space would be bizarre.
7. Misplaced Burden Fallacy
The misplace burden fallacy is a flawed method of reasoning in which the burden of persuasion is initially placed on the wrong side of a debate or legal battle. An example of the MB fallacy would be:
The plaintiff bears the burden of proof and persuasion in the American legal system. But, today, we’re going to pretend that the burden is on the defendant anyway. And since the defendant hasn’t proven his case, he loses.
No lawyer would allow such nonsense to slip by in court of law, but many well-meaning citizens, even animal rights activists, fail to confront this commonly held view:
Torturing and killing of the innocent is universally recognized as wrong. But, today, we’re going to pretend that torturing and killing of the innocent is right anyway. And since those who oppose such torture and killing haven’t proven their case, they lose.
In technical terms, this fallacy consists of replacing a premise known to be true with a premise known to be false. Specifically, the argument places the initial burden on party A, even though it is known that party B actually bears the initial burden. The argument is accordingly invalid.
Make no mistake: the burden of persuasion belongs on those who favor killing and torturing of the innocent, not on those who oppose it. And that burden will never be successfully carried. Which is why the global transition to veganism is not only desirable but inevitable.
(Original article publication date: January 24, 2010 (Cruelty-Free))
Snapshot: Uncommon Law™ Universal Judicial Opinion Entry Software Forces Judges to Be Logical
(Original article publication date: July 15, 2008 (Inventerprise))
Problem
Common law judicial opinions have no set form or style (except that they be in English), and they are required to meet no minimum standards for quality—or even validity. This free-form, free-wheeling approach to law evolved hundreds of years ago as an expedient measure in less-enlightened times. And it’s time for it to go.
Solution
Uncommon Law™ software eliminates the possibility of long-winded, unnecessary rambling (the lawyers tell us they call that “dicta”) and of fallacious reasoning as follows: a judge logs into the Uncommon Law website and enters the case number and other identifying information. He then enters conclusion and premise data that go to make up his argument into the proper field. As many fields as necessary can be used, but each entry should include only one premise or conclusion.
Result
In this way, the logical validity of a judicial opinion can be relatively easily reviewed for errors—perhaps even automatically reviewed for certain simple errors.
Every law student knows—or had better know in time for the bar exam—that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, meaning, that no law can conflict with the Constitution and still be deemed valid. That is the case here in the United States, and virtually every other country has some document or body of law that is treated as supreme in that country. In short, laws of lower priority (local laws, for instance) must yield to the supreme law of the sovereign nation. Meanwhile, foreign laws have even lower status, namely, no effect at all; the law in France does not apply to me, unless, of course, I go to France or become a French citizen.
The discussion of supremacy could end there and, typically, it does. But, in fact, there are laws that trump even the supreme law of the land, and there are laws that apply in every country, transcending all national boundaries, regardless of sovereignty.
Chief among these “over-laws” are the laws of nature. We could pass a constitutional amendment saying that “Gravity shall not apply in Massachusetts” or “All citizens over the age of 18 shall be invisible.” But these “supreme” laws would in fact be void; they would have no effect. When Nature and the Constitution square off, Nature wins.
Fair enough, one might say. There is no need to belabor the obvious. End of discussion.
But the discussion actually does not end there either. When applied in advance (prediction) or after the fact (reflection) in the imagination of a person, the laws of nature have a different name: logic. Yet the supremacy of the laws of nature remains.
For instance, imagine an individual who is accused of murdering someone else. But the murder in question occurred three years before the accused was born. The laws of nature, in such a case, would prevent the accused from being the actual murderer.
In a court of law, considering the crime after the fact, we would apply the laws of nature by saying that to convict someone of a crime that, under the laws of nature, he or she could not have committed “would not make sense”; in other words, it would be “illogical.” Specifically, it is illogical for an effect to precede its cause.
While one flows from the other, there are some major differences between logic and the laws of nature. Perhaps most importantly, the laws of nature cannot be ignored in the present. Gravity works, whether we acknowledge it or not. Our opinion is irrelevant to the functioning of the laws of nature.
But when considering the past or the future, it is far too easy to forget the laws of nature or to misapply them, i.e., to be irrational, to draw illogical inferences. We can easily imagine scenarios that are, while imaginable, impossible. We can imagine, for instance, that a person traveled back in time so as to commit the murder that happened three years before he or she was born. We can imagine a perpetual motion machine. But imagining such things does not make them real.
Misapplying the laws of nature in reflection or prediction is a human error. When we make such errors, grave injustices can be committed. Innocent people are burned at the stake; perpetrators go free; plaintiffs find no relief. Nonetheless, the laws of nature remain supreme and govern in every nation, as does their lieutenant in the minds of men and women, logic. It is we who forget this fundamental supremacy at our peril.
If you ask a friend to describe the essence of morality or ethical behavior, he or she will probably list a number of personality traits: unselfishness, courage, commitment to ideals and values, patience, willingness to forgive, and similar qualities. Certainly, in many religious faiths and philosophical systems, personality traits are the focus: the Christian Beatitudes, for instance, praise meekness, purity of spirit, and peacefulness, while the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism emphasizes honesty and detachment.
Against such a backdrop, I am willing to bet that almost no one, when asked, “What is morality?”, would reply, “Good logic skills.”
Logical ability simply does not get factored into discussions of morality, neither in religious nor philosophical nor politically correct circles, at least those to which I am privy. Personality, not processing power, is what we believe to be the heart of morality.
But I think that the omission of reasoning skills from the landscape of morality is a mistake. In fact, it is not difficult to demonstrate that bad logic and bad acts — morally bad acts — often go hand in hand.
Looking into the history of a particular instance of slavery or genocide, we often find an entire network of scientists, philosophers, writers and speakers who laid the foundation. They did so through clever, manipulative but logically untenable theories and “discoveries.” The crimes against humanity committed by Nazi Germany, for instance, were in large part made possible by widespread dissemination of specious arguments about German racial superiority.
A person armed with strong logic skills sees through such garbage. But someone without sufficient reasoning skills is easy prey for pseudoscientists and demagogues.
The relationship between bad logic and immorality, however, is by no means limited to grandscale, social and cultural events and institutions. Personal acts of immorality are also committed by those whose primary “moral” flaw is that of having poor logic skills. Child abuse, spouse abuse, elder abuse and animal abuse are oftentimes predicated upon a genuine but irrational belief in the mind of the perpetrator that the abuse is “good for” the victim. In such a case, the failure may not be so much one of personality as it is one of intellectual ability, in particular, reasoning skills.
The relationship between bad logic and immorality becomes much more visible in the field of law. In particular, when lawyers, judges and lawmakers make logical errors, the results are quite dramatic: people lose their rights, their freedom, and sometimes even their lives simply because someone else can’t reason well.
If one’s irrationality hurts no one else, it’s not a big deal. But when one person suffers actual harm as a direct result of someone else’s poor reasoning skills, the latter’s rational failure is, to me, immoral, perhaps as immoral as any failure arising out of a personality trait.
Biographer 
You must be logged in to post a comment.