vinayrsm wrote:
Hi All,
We all know that most CR questions (except the one in which we need to draw a conclusion) provide a conclusion and that the Conclusion proposes a relationship between different Entities.
Are there any other main types of conclusions? If yes, please share. Thanks!
Hii vinay,
Well for now I can't share all possible types of conclusion, but will certainly make a note of every type I counter from now on and add up to this thread time to time. Apart from conclusion, faulty reasoning questions also have some major types of faulty conclusions (Post hoc ergo propter hoc, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, argumentum ad hominem etc etc ). here is a list of common fallacious conclusions I got from Lsatblog. I am pasting them here.
List of common logical fallacies compiled by Steve Schwartz - ManhattanLSAT from
https://lsatblog.blogspot.com/1. Ice cream sales increase in the summer. Violent crime also increases in the summer.
Therefore, ice cream causes violent crime.
-Assumes that correlation means causation. However, there is a third variable here -the increased temperature in the summertime, which causes both ice cream sales and violent crime to increase.
2. Before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons. Therefore, women’s suffrage led to the development of nuclear weapons.
-"Post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Believes that just because one thing came before another means that the first thing caused the second thing.
3. “I can’t believe you attended that protest. Why don’t you support our country?”
-Assumes more than is warranted. Attending a protest does not necessarily mean that you don't support the country.
4. You get cancer and seek treatment. With health being your only concern, you decide
to go the hospital that has the highest cancer patient survival rates.
-While this sounds good at first, think about what kind of hospital would have the highest cancer patient survival rates. While this could mean it's a great hospital, it might also mean the hospital is receiving the easiest, most straightforward cases. The most skilled doctors want a challenge, so they go to hospitals specializing in more difficult and rare forms of cancer. People with difficult cases seek out these doctors. As such, these doctors will have lower cancer patient survival rates even though they are better doctors.
5. Bill: "I believe that downloading is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a record company executive."
-"Ad hominem." Dave attacks a personal characteristic of Bill, rather than addressing Bill's position.
6. My teacher said that I had to read the textbook if I wanted to pass the exam. I have
read the textbook, so I will definitely pass the exam.
-Confuses necessary and sufficient conditions. If you pass the exam, it means you read the textbook, but reading the textbook is not enough to pass the exam. You must understand what's in the textbook, be able to write well, show up to the exam, etc.
7. Oil spills are always caused by hull breaches. Therefore, if oil tankers are reinforced
with double hulls, oil spills will decrease.
-"System effect." This does address the cause of the hull breaches, which would make you think that oil spills will decrease. However, once the sailors know the tanker is reinforced with double hulls, they might sail the ship more recklessly, which can lead to more hull breaches and oil spills.
8. If Robert Moses hadn’t built all those roads and bridges in New York City, traffic
congestion today would be even worse.
-Building all the roads and bridges makes it easier for traffic to get to NYC. Also, someone else might have built them instead.
9. Before every major revolution, a country experiences economic decline. Therefore,
economic decline leads to revolutions.
-Confuses necessary and sufficient conditions. If we have a revolution, we know economic decline came before it. However, economic decline can occur without a revolution following it.
10. "I’ll only believe in evolution when a monkey gives birth to a human."
-"Straw man" argument. Sets an unreasonably high burden of proof and misrepresents the theory of evolution.
close
02 Sep 2011, 01:31
