Informal Logic: Deductive Reasoning

Informal logic is a big part of the LSAT.

Professor Walker White, who teaches Computer Science at Cornell University, has graciously agreed to share some of his tips on understanding informal logic with everyone reading LSAT Blog.

His discussion includes detailed analysis of a real LSAT Logic Game. I've made a few of the other examples "LSAT Blog"-specific. The first part's below, and the second is Informal Logic: Deduction and Arguments.

Please thank Professor White in the comments for sharing these great articles!

Part 1: Deductive Reasoning

An argument that relies only on deduction is guaranteed to be valid. For example, a deductive argument might consist of two premises of the form:

1. If P is true, then Q is true.
2. P is true.

Deduction allows us to conclude from these two premises that:

3. Q is true.

For example, suppose we use a Google search to demonstrate that LSAT Blog has no articles on ladies footwear. In this case, we are making deduction with two premises:

1. If Google returns no LSAT Blog articles for "LSAT Blog ladies footwear," then LSAT Blog has no articles on ladies footwear.
2. Google returns no LSAT Blog articles for "LSAT Blog ladies footwear."

From these premises, it is valid to conclude that LSAT Blog has no articles on ladies footwear. Again, this does not mean the claim is true. Premise (1) is a complicated premise, and depends on the reliability of Google. But if Google is not reliable, then our debate is about that premise, and not the conclusion.
Students of informal logic sometimes try to split claim (1) into a premise and a conclusion. However, if-then statements are typically a single claim about a relationship between two observations. In this case, premise (1) is a claim about how reliable Google is for finding LSAT Blog articles. One way to think about this is the difference between the following two statements:

• If Google cannot find an article, then it must not exist.
• Because Google cannot find the article, it must not exist.

The first is a single claim about the reliability of Google. The second is an argument where we assert that a Google search has failed, and use this as evidence of the article's absence. In fact, this argument uses the first claim as an unspoken premise.

Deduction works "by definition" (and the principle of identity). When we make a claim like "if P is true, then Q is true," we mean that given argument P is true, this argument also shows Q is true. Given this observation, it does not appear that our deduction is particularly useful. We wanted to prove that LSAT Blog has no articles on ladies footwear, but to do so, we introduced a more complicated premise about Google's reliability. In the case of Google, we may be willing to accept this particular premise on faith. However in general, unless we know how to deduce or evaluate a conditional statement like (1), we are again back where we started.

Fortunately, we can deduce new conditionals as conclusions, provided that we have other conditionals as premises. To deduce a new conditional, we start first with a new premise. This new premise is introduced "for the sake of argument"—we are not making any claims about whether it is true or false. We use the existing conditionals to deduce a new conclusion. If we do this, then the conditional that connects the initial premise with the conclusion is itself a valid conclusion of the existing conditionals.
This explanation confuses even me, so it is best to proceed with an example.

See the rules of the second Logic Game in PrepTest 20 (the October 1996 LSAT), excerpted in Logic Made Easy.

Suppose, in that game, we want to deduce the new conditional statement:

If P is cut, then R is cut.

We start by assuming, "for the sake of argument," that P is cut. Deducing from premise (4), we know that L is not cut. Additionally, premise (5) is actually shorthand for a bunch of conditionals, one of which is "if L is not cut, then M and R are cut." Hence we can deduce that both M and R are cut. We started assuming that P is cut and sequence of deductions provided us with the conclusion that R is cut. That means, from premises (1)-(4), we can deduce the conditional "if P is cut, then R is cut."

From this example, we see that conditionals are a form of hedging our bets. We can have a perfectly valid argument about the consequences of cutting area P without committing to the claim that P is actually going to be cut. It is possible that P is the pet project of the university president and will never be cut, but that does not make our argument invalid. Hence, deductive arguments are another excellent example why we must separate truth from validity.

***

Read on for Part 2: Informal Logic: Deduction and Arguments.

Informal Logic: Deduction and Arguments

This is the second part of Professor White's discussion of informal logic. The first part is Informal Logic: Deductive Reasoning.

Deduction and arguments

We have seen that we can deduce new conditionals from old. But where do we get conditionals to start with? Fortunately, we can get conditionals from our three principles. Premise (5) in Part 1's LSAT example was shorthand for a collection of conditionals; in the same way, both non-contradiction and excluded middle provide us with several conditionals. For example, excluded middle gives us "if P is not true, then P is false" for anything we want to fill in the blank for P.

In addition to conditionals, these principles get us two more induction techniques beyond simple if-then arguments. In reality, these arguments could be converted to if-then deductions if we wanted to. These additional methods are just templates that help us speed up the process a bit.

Argument by contradiction

In an argument by contradiction, we provisionally assume that a claim is false. We then deduce a premise is false. As a valid argument is an argument about true premises, this violates the principle of non-contradiction. Hence our deduction had to have made a mistake somewhere. The only possible mistake was our initial assumption that the claim is false, so it cannot be false. By the principle of excluded middle, this means this claim is true.

Returning to our LSAT example from Part 1, suppose we want to deduce the claim

One of P, G, or S cannot be cut.

To argue by contradiction, we start assuming that this claim is false. In other words, all three of them are cut. When G and S are cut, we can deduce from premise (2) that W is cut. By premise (5) we know that two of L, M, and R must be cut. Counting all these up, we get at least six areas that must be cut. This contradicts premise (1), so one of the initial three—P, G, or S—cannot be cut.

Argument by cases

In an argument by cases, we start with a claim and create two arguments: one assuming the claim false, and another assuming the claim true. If we can deduce the same conclusion in both cases, then that conclusion is valid because of the principle of excluded middle.

Returning to our LSAT example, suppose we want to deduce the claim

If R is not cut, then G must be cut.

We are deducing a conditional, so we start with the provisional assumption that R is not cut. We can immediately deduce, from premise (4), that L and M are cut. By premise (1), we need to reduce three more areas from G, S, W, and N. We now break our argument into two cases:

• N is not cut. This leaves us only three areas left to choose from, so G must be cut.
• N is cut. We deduce from premise (3) that S is not cut. That leaves us only two areas to choose our remaining two cuts from, so G must be cut.

G is cut in both cases, so we have successfully argued "if R is not cut, then G must be cut."

In practice, these arguments rarely have a true/false breakdown. Instead, they start with an exhaustive list of possibilities and use them as the cases. For example, if we want to argue that tuition at Ivy League schools is too expensive, we can list all of the Ivy League schools and present a separate argument for each. Be warned that this approach has an unstated premise, namely that the list covers all of the possibilities. Ignoring this additional premise is the source of the false dilemma fallacy.

***

Please thank Professor White in the comments for sharing these articles!

Photo by wallyg

Logical Fallacies and Don't Ask, Don't Tell

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed a bill repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), the ban on allowing gays and lesbians in the military to serve openly.

The debate around DADT has been going on since it was first put into place as a legislative compromise in 1993.

However, passing an identical bill in the Senate is now the last major obstacle.

While I'd love it if everyone agreed with me and encouraged their senators to repeal the ban before the session ends, I'm more interested in seeing you engage in analysis of the arguments on both sides.

As such, here's what I'm going to do:

I'll dissect a couple of flawed arguments against repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell made by Senator John McCain, one of its most prominent advocates.

Then, I'd like to see you all, in the comments, point out flaws in the arguments of those favoring the repeal. Of course, you can also point out flaws in the arguments of those against repeal.

Why might you want to put yourself in the other side's shoes? Playing devil's advocate can help you to find weaknesses in your argument, leading you to ultimately improve its strength.

Anyway, here are a couple of flaws:

Moving the Goalposts

* In October 2006, Senator McCain said, "The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it." (Wikipedia).

* In January 2010, when Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen came out in favor of changing the policy (repealing DADT), McCain suggested that they weren't really relevant because in their current posts, they don't directly lead troops (NYTimes).

In other words, McCain shifted the type of leadership position that he considered relevant. When a sufficient condition for him to consider changing the policy was met, he imposed new requirements (such as "further study").


Failure to Acknowledge Opposing Evidence

McCain said the support of Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, and other leaders wasn't enough - a study of DADT repeal's impact was necessary. A 10-month study Pentagon study basically found that DADT repeal wouldn't be so bad. However, it seems that because McCain didn't like the study's results, he refused to accept its validity. While we know from the LSAT that studies and surveys are often flawed or poorly-conducted, McCain's particular criticisms don't seem to carry much weight (Huffington Post / Daily Show).

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 30 (December 1999 LSAT), S2, Q2 (p54)
PrepTest 34 (June 2001 LSAT), S2, Q24 (p201)

***

There's a lot more I could say, but I'd really like to turn this discussion over to you.

What are some other flaws being committed on either side of the debate?

How about:

-Appeal to Emotion?
-Appeal to Popular Opinion?
-Straw Man (Misrepresenting the Argument)?

If so, what kinds of arguments contain them?

I look forward to reading your responses!

***

Further Reading:

Scott Brown And Lisa Murkowski Back Standalone DADT Repeal Bill [TPM]

House Votes to Repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ [NYTimes]

Rep. Louie Gohmert: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Threatens American 'Existence' (Video) [HuffPost]

Repeal Of DADT Paves Way For Gay Sex Right On Battlefield, Opponents Fantasize [The Onion]

LSAT Logic: The TSA's Body Scans and Pat-downs

If you traveled by plane for Thanksgiving, I hope you didn't get patted down too much (unless you wanted to be, of course).

I'm against the TSA's pat-downs at airports nationwide. Not because they're invasive, but because they deny lonely people their once-yearly groping as they travel during the holiday season.

There's been a lot of controversy over the pat-downs and body scans lately, and the holiday travel season's coming up. Let's take a quick look at a few flawed arguments on both sides of the debate from the LSAT perspective.

False Analogy

In favor of body scans:

"What's the big deal? If you don't complain when a doctor X-rays you, you shouldn't be complaining now."

The difference, of course, is that a doctor is someone you implicitly trust (I hope). A doctor is well-trained in operating X-ray equipment and usually X-rays only a specific portion of your body (placing a lead apron around other parts of your body to protect them from the radiation). Further, the X-ray is taken for the purpose of learning information that may help you.

In contrast, body scanners may expose your entire body to potentially-harmful doses of radiation and are operated by people who may be poorly-trained. Further, you've never met them and little reason to trust any of them over a random stranger. Additionally, you don't really stand to gain from having your own body screened in the first place. It's the screening of others screened that you stand to benefit from (since, dear reader, I presume you're not a terrorist).


In opposition to body scans:

"These scanners are like allowing strangers to see you completely naked."









Sadly, they don't seem to be quite that exciting, judging from the above photo supplied by the TSA.

In both examples above, the speakers are treating different situations as if they're similar.

In LSAT language:
"treats as similar two cases that are different in a critical respect."

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 29 (October 1999 LSAT), S4, Q25 (p43)
PrepTest 31 (June 2000 LSAT), S3, Q5 (p97)
PrepTest 33 (December 2000 LSAT), S3, Q15 (p172)




Ad Hominem Attack (Personal Attack)

In favor of body scans and pat-downs:

"These body scans and pat-downs can only make us more safe. All of you who are against it must just be ashamed of your own bodies."

There are plenty of reasons to be against the body scans and pat-downs aside from being shame of one's body.

Even if some opponents are ashamed of their own bodies, maybe they are also modest, have religious reasons for not having strangers touch them or look at them almost-naked, or simply don't want random people touching them or looking at them in intimate areas.

(Additionally, maybe the new security measures can make us less safe by directing attention and money away from more effective security measures.)


In opposition to body scans and pat-downs:

"I just saw a TSA employee leafing through Playboy, so there's no real security reason for these pat-downs and body scans. The TSA employees just want to grab our junk and see us all almost naked."

First of all, leafing through Playboy doesn't necessarily make one a pervert. After all, it has great articles.

Further, even if it makes that employee a pervert, that doesn't necessarily mean all TSA employees are perverts. (This is a different flaw - the fallacy of composition.)

The major flaw in the above argument that I want to address here is simply that even if the TSA is filled with perverts, that doesn't guarantee that there aren't sufficient reasons for the pat-downs and body scans. It probably just means that, if they are perverts, and there are sufficient reasons for the pat-downs and body scans, you probably want someone else conducting them.

In LSAT language:
"rejects a claim by attacking the proponents of the claim rather than addressing the claim itself"
"attack employers' motives instead of addressing their arguments"
"criticizing the source of a claim rather than examining the claim itself"

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 19 (June 1996 LSAT), S2, Q14 (p24)
PrepTest 26 (June 1998 LSAT), S4, Q4 (p241)
PrepTest 32 (October 2000 LSAT), S2, Q6 (p139)
PrepTest 34 (June 2001 LSAT), S2, Q1 (p194)



Appeal to Popular Opinion

In favor of body scans and pat-downs:

"The public has demonstrated its willingness to subject itself to these security measures. Therefore, it's fine to go ahead with them."

In opposition to body scans and pat-downs:

"Everyone hates these new TSA security measures. The TSA must stop them immediately."

Whether the public is in favor of, or in opposition to, the security measures has no bearing on whether they are effective or necessary for airport security.


In LSAT language:
"taking evidence that a claim is believed to be true to constitute evidence that the claim is in fact true"

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 28 (June 1999 LSAT), S1, Q9 (p324)
PrepTest 32 (October 2000 LSAT), S4, Q13 (p141)

LSAT Logic (Of Course) & Bargaining For Deals

Hope everyone celebrating Thanksgiving had a happy one!

With the holiday season coming up, many of you will be shopping for friends and family. In a down economy, it's more important than ever to get the best possible deal.

While sites like Amazon already have huge Black Friday sales, sometimes you'll actually have to get out of your pajamas and bargain with a real, live human (maybe at a boutique or something). They'll resist your efforts, but recognizing the flaws in their reasoning will help you make the best possible argument.


False Analogy












"With the deal you're asking for, you'd be stealing money right out of my pocket."

"With a customer like you, I might as well just flush my money down the toilet."

The salesman treats different situations as if they are similar. Even if the salesman were to lose money on the deal, that's not quite the same as "stealing." Nor is it the same as flushing money down the toilet. Giving a good deal is much less likely to clog one's toilet, and it has the added benefit of creating goodwill (although that doesn't necessarily make it a good business decision).

In LSAT language:

"treats as similar two cases that are different in a critical respect."

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 29 (October 1999 LSAT), S4, Q25 (p43)
PrepTest 31 (June 2000 LSAT), S3, Q5 (p97)
PrepTest 33 (December 2000 LSAT), S3, Q15 (p172)



Ad Hominem Attack (Personal Attack)










"You drove here in a Maserati. Why should I give you the deep discount you want?"

"That's a nice iPad for you to use while claiming that my prices will put you in the poorhouse."


The customer's ownership of the Maserati has nothing to do with the value of the item the customer is purchasing from the salesman.

Perhaps the customer can't afford to pay a lot for the item precisely because he or she bought the iPad.


In LSAT language:
"rejects a claim by attacking the proponents of the claim rather than addressing the claim itself"
"attack employers' motives instead of addressing their arguments"
"criticizing the source of a claim rather than examining the claim itself"

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 19 (June 1996 LSAT), S2, Q14 (p24)
PrepTest 26 (June 1998 LSAT), S4, Q4 (p241) (esp. relevant to Park51)
PrepTest 32 (October 2000 LSAT), S2, Q6 (p139)
PrepTest 34 (June 2001 LSAT), S2, Q1 (p194)


Appeal to Popular Opinion

"This is one of our most popular items. Everyone loves it, so you will too!"

Or check out this portion of a random banner ad:




Or this McDonald's sign:








Just because more people go with Visa (whatever that means) and just because McDonald's has served over 99 billion meals, does that mean going with them is the way to go? Maybe they've just managed to fool all those people, but going with them wasn't necessarily the smartest move.

An example of LSAT language describing this flaw:

"taking evidence that a claim is believed to be true to constitute evidence that the claim is in fact true"

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 28 (June 1999 LSAT), S1, Q9 (p324)
PrepTest 32 (October 2000 LSAT), S4, Q13 (p141)


Part-to-Whole Flaw












This is a flaw that stores actually try to get you to commit. They prominently feature the best deals to draw you into the store, so you'll likely buy more expensive items when the advertised cheap ones have already sold out.

"This store has the best deals - I saw they're selling Call of Duty for only $29.99. Oh, they were sold out at 6AM because only 50 were in stock? Hmm...I'll buy this (overpriced) Microsoft Kinect for $299 instead."

(I don't know about you, but if I'm awake at 5AM, I don't want it to be because I'm waiting outside in the cold at some department store fighting to get the last discounted flatscreen TV at Best Buy.)

In LSAT language:
"improperly draws an inference about the scientific community from a premise about individual scientists"

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 19 (June 1996 LSAT), S4, Q3 (p36)
PrepTest 35 (October 2001 LSAT), S4, S18 (p245)

LSAT Logical Reasoning Grouped by Type Book (More)

For those of you who intend to complete every LSAT Logical Reasoning question ever published, there's a book for you. It's called:

More Grouped by Question Type: LSAT Logical Reasoning: The Complete Collection of Actual, Official Logic Reasoning Questions from PrepTests 21-40

This book is incredibly useful for two major reasons (which the title makes obvious):

Reason #1: More Grouped by Question Type compiles all the games from PrepTests 21-40 in one book. This allows you to avoid getting 10 More Actual Official LSAT PrepTests (exams 19-28), Next 10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests (exams 29-38), and PrepTests 39 and 40 if you would've wanted any of those books/exams only for their Logical Reasoning questions.

Reason #2: More Grouped by Question Type organizes Logical Reasoning questions by type, rather than by PrepTest (as the traditional books of PrepTests from LSAC do). It divides them into different "chapters" based upon the type of Logical Reasoning question. Because these are not from the newest exams (they're from December 1996 - June 2003), you may want to complete those exams in pieces anyway, rather than as full timed exams.

While this book is a great concept, it may not be for you simply because you'll probably want to complete all of the Logic Games and Reading Comprehension sections in 29-38 anyway, or because you may want to use some of these exams for full timed sections.

Although this would save you some flipping around in the books of PrepTests, we already have a few categorizations of Logical Reasoning questions by type on the blog.

***

I'm listing the chapters of the book below so you can see the types of categories the book uses. While it doesn't perfectly follow the above-linked categorizations of Logical Reasoning questions, and it sometimes uses different terms, it's fairly close. Don't worry too much about the differences in terminology, though, because the book's brief introduction explains how the Logical Reasoning questions are categorized.

Chapters:
1. Introduction

2. Arguments
-Method of Reasoning
-Main Conclusion
-Matching Patterns of Reasoning

3. Flaws in Arguments
Argument Flaw
Matching Argument Flaw

4. What Can Be Concluded From The Information Provided
-Must Be True
-Must Be False
-Most Strongly Supported
-Point At Issue

5. Understanding The Impact of Additional Information
-Weaken
-Strengthen
-Evaluate the Argument

6. Assumptions
-Sufficient Assumption
-Necessary Assumption

7. Principle

8. Resolve

9. Index and Answer Key

***

Who should use this book:

Most test-takers won't find this book necessary. However, anyone who intends to focus specifically on LSAT Logical Reasoning questions by type in exams 21-40 without doing those exams' Logic Games/Reading Comprehension questions (or just wants less to carry around!) will find this book worthwhile and convenient.

***

Also see:

Grouped by Question Type Book
Grouped by Reading Passage Type Book
Grouped by Game Type Book.

Difficult LSAT Logical Reasoning Questions

Here's a list of several Logical Reasoning questions in recent LSAT PrepTests that my students often ask me to explain.

The number of questions listed per PrepTest/section should not be taken as an indication of the PrepTest's/section's overall difficulty. The questions I've listed are simply those that jumped out at me when flipping through each of these exams.

Order the individual PrepTests now because they tend to run out in the weeks before test dates.

***

PrepTest 43 - June 2004 LSAT

S2, Q15 - government prevent cigarettes advertised, fatty foods
S2, Q16 - natural beauty, older local industries, regional economies
S2, Q18 - health education, propaganda
S3, Q9 - lecturers, effective teachers, eccentric, good communicators
S3, Q13 - sun dimmer, oceans frozen
S3, Q20 - computer microprocessor design flaws


PrepTest 44 - October 2004 LSAT

S2, Q11 - Euclidean geometry
S2, S13 - environmental problems, government mismanagement, consumer habits
S2, Q17 - hummingbird, goose, ostrich, eggs
S4, Q17 - ice ages, cosmic dust clouds, sun's orbit
S4, S18 - happiness, desires, compulsions, consequences


PrepTest 45 - December 2004 LSAT

S1, Q12 - dioxin, fish, reproductive abnormalities, river
S1, Q21 - geological record, meteor impacts, mass extinctions
S1, Q23 - morally right, best consequences
S1, Q24 - DNA samples and tests, exoneration
S4, Q18 - decentralization, large institutions function autonomously
S4, Q20 - 9-year-olds, major cigarette brand logos
S4, Q22 - jazz recordings, CDs, radio
S4, Q25 - vague staff review regulations


PrepTest 46 - June 2005 LSAT

S2, Q19 - babies, musical intervals
S2, Q20 - difficult exams and questions comparison, professors
S2, Q23 - kind, happy, love
S3, Q17 - computer professor evaluations
S3, Q22 - increase in # of old people, average age
S3, Q24 - money doesn't really exist


PrepTest 47 - October 2005 LSAT

S1, Q19 - live vs. inactivated polio vaccine
S1, Q22 - pesticides banned in U.S.
S1, Q26 - 1st-graders handwriting/composition skills
S3, Q21 - fitness consultant, cigarettes, clients
S3, Q23 - TV, paranormal, public's scientific understanding


PrepTest 48 - December 2005 LSAT

S1, Q19 - biology professors, bias, administrative positions
S1, Q24 - voters, join, donate, party viable?
S4, Q21 - community succeed, face unpleasant realities
S4, Q23 - managers, time management seminars/skills
S4, Q25 - psychological problems, behavioral therapy sessions


PrepTest 49 - June 2006 LSAT

S2, Q18 - nature, organic, holistic, nonlinear
S2, Q25 - public disclosure of investments
S4, Q16 - beauty, truth, most realistic art
S4, Q24 - Compujack computer programmer salaries


PrepTest 50 - September 2006 LSAT

S2, Q18 - toddlers, prefrontal cortex, rules
S2, Q21 - seafood, restaurant, illness, bacteria
S2, Q24 - acid rain, pollutants
S4, Q19 - smokers, heart disease, caffeinated beverages
S4, Q24 - asteroid, Yucatan peninsula, triceratops


PrepTest 51 - December 2006 LSAT

S1, Q20 - experienced salespeople, quota
S1, Q21 - sliding glass doors, summer vs. colder months
S3, Q12 - environmental articles, newspapers, orthodoxy
S3, Q18 - bacteria, flagellum, survival advantage


June 2007 LSAT (Unnumbered - Free PDF)

S2, Q17 - computer experts, significant threats
S2, Q19 - Land Party, rural, economic problems
S2, Q23 - morally right, wrong, well-being
S3, Q19 - candidates, governmental intrusion
S3, Q25 - human species, diverse array of environments


PrepTest 52 - September 2007 LSAT

S1, Q16 - extraterrestrials, UFOs
S1, Q21 - Iliad, Odyssey, Homer
S1, Q24 - intensive pasteurization of apple juice
S3, Q16 - hospitals, recovery rates, length of stay
S3, Q25 - studying distant past


PrepTest 53 - December 2007 LSAT

S1, Q8 - children, night lights, nearsightedness
S1, Q18 - salesperson, successful, client base
S1, Q21 - trees blossom, April/May rainfall
S3, Q18 - preserving nature, beauty, moral value
S3, Q25 - short meetings, relevant issues


PrepTest 54 - June 2008 LSAT

S2, Q23 - Southgate Mall, Mattress Madness
S2, Q26 - government, new severe weather sirens
S4, Q20 - TV Meteorologist, weather forecast, reliable
S4, Q21 - witnesses, inaccuracies, cross-examination


PrepTest 55 - October 2008 LSAT

S1, Q15 - Zack's Coffeehouse, free poetry readings
S1, Q21 - TV shows, funding, advertisers
S1, Q25 - 20th-century art, great art, influential, original
S3, Q18 - children's cognitive development
S3, Q19 - ideal bureaucracy, regulations
S3, Q25 - mathematics department, course


PrepTest 56 - December 2008 LSAT

S2, Q14 - overconfident entrepreneurs
S2, Q19 - literature, physics ,art, rhetoric
S2, Q24 - Byzantine Empire, lead seals
S3, Q16 - trust, happiness, meaningful emotional connection
S3, Q23 - summer day, temperature, humidity


PrepTest 57 - June 2009 LSAT

S2, Q12 - criminal organizations, generate profits
S2, Q24 - poem, contradictory ideas, author
S2, Q25 - mayoral campaign contributions, Weston
S3, Q14 - nonfat food labeling
S3, Q20 - moral action, securing mutual benefit
S3, Q23 - mitters, brushes, car washes


PrepTest 58 - September 2009 LSAT

S1, Q24 - bear population, preserve, valley
S1, Q25 - wig, handmade components, human hair
S4, Q23 - linear craters, volcanoes, meteorites
S4, Q24 - genuine creative genius, popular viewpoints


PrepTest 59 - December 2009 LSAT

S2, Q20 - quality control investigator, defective samples
S2, Q25 - luminous Sun, carbon dioxide, oceans
S3, Q19 - understanding word, knowing definition, babies
S3, Q20 - peppered moths avoiding predators
S3, Q21 - QWERTY keyboard, typewriters


PrepTest 60 - June 2010 LSAT

S1, Q13 - financial rewards, incentives in choosing jobs
S1, Q16 - buying old cars, reducing air pollution
S1, Q23 - laws against libel, public figures' reputations
S3, Q12 - labeling "miniature" fruit trees
S3, Q19 - sea butterflies, predation, compounds
S3, Q24 - sales of underground rock group's recordings


Photo by dalvenjah

LSAT Logic and "Ground Zero Mosque" Arguments, Part 1

As regular readers may agree, aside from a few simple dissections of logical fallacies on The Colbert Report, I've rarely revealed, let alone promoted, my personal opinions on this blog.

However, the more I read and watch about Park51 (the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque"), the angrier I get.

It looks like this will be a major issue in the Congressional elections this November unless something more controversial comes along (unlikely).

Since I know you all come here for LSAT advice (not for my personal opinions), I've debated for a while on whether to blog about it.

However, since I have a strong opinion on this, I feel the need to share it with others and present my arguments to those who may not agree with me.

Don't worry - I'll relate this to LSAT Logical Reasoning prep. The arguments on the opposing side contain many LSAT-style flaws, so I'm going to analyze several of them.

If you care about this issue and want to inject some reason into this debate, please forward this to your friends and post the link on Facebook and Twitter.

If you think you'll be offended, or you'll disagree, I especially want you to read this, and post a comment. It's healthy to read things you disagree with, and you're the folks I'm really writing this for, anyway.

***

Before we get into things, a few notes:

1. These are not the only flaws in the arguments of my opponents. Just some of the big ones.

2. I have not dissected every flaw contained in each video I link. Within a 30-second clip, several flaws may appear. Relatedly, even within a section on a specific flaw, I may make points addressing other flaws. This is simply because real-world arguments are more complicated than those on the LSAT. Consider yourself lucky.

3. This is the first part of a 2-part series. The 1st deals with LSAT-style flaws contained in some arguments opposing the construction of Park51. The 2nd deals with general arguments opposing its construction, and my responses to those arguments. While some are certainly related to the LSAT flaws in the 1st section, I haven't explicitly connected them.

If you're living in the LSAT vacuum (it happens, believe me) and don't care at all about the Park51 debate, focus more on the 1st part. However, if you engage with the arguments and analyze them, you may become interested enough in the general debate to read the 2nd out of curiosity.

***

Finally, I just want to say it's perfectly fine to disagree - you can still do perfectly well on the LSAT. Again, I encourage everyone who holds any position at all on this to leave a comment on this blog post.


Some Flaws in Arguments Against Park51

Appeal to Emotion

The Anti-Defamation League betrayed its principles when its Chairman stated, with regard to (some) 9/11 victims, "[t]heir anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.”

I suppose what he really means that their anguish "entitles" them to irrational and bigoted positions. That's perfectly understandable.

However, I hope it doesn't take you future lawyers too long to determine the problems inherent in deciding public policy based upon the wishes of the more emotional and irrational members of society.

The fact that some find the exercise of a particular religion to be offensive is not sufficient reason to ban it or to ask it to go somewhere less bothersome.

One downside of freedom of speech and religion is that sometimes you'll be offended by a particular form of speech or religion. Similarly, sometimes others will be offended by your speech and religion. That's part of living in a free society. I'm sorry.

Attempting to avoid offense is certainly something you can pursue on your own, but don't ask others to step in to prevent speech or religion simply because you're upset.

(Here's a perfect example of appeal to emotion. Maybe it's insensitive to equate those building their version of the 92nd St. Y with extremists just because they happen to fall within the same general religion.)

In LSAT language:

"It appeals to the emotion of pity rather than addressing the issue raised"

Example of the same flaw in an actual LSAT question:
PrepTest 26 (September 1998 LSAT), S2, Q1 (p258)



Appeal to Popular Opinion

A Time Magazine poll states 61% of Americans oppose the mosque, and "more than 70% concur with the premise that proceeding with the plan would be an insult to the victims" of 9/11. (This poll's similar.)

A Fox News poll shows, while 61% of registered voters believe Muslims have the right to build the mosque, 64% believe it would be wrong to do so.

"Because the majority of those surveyed believes that building Park51 would be wrong, building it would be wrong."

However, just as emotion is not the soundest guide to public policy, neither is public opinion.

Just because a majority holds a particular opinion, this doesn't necessarily mean their wishes should be followed or their viewpoint is correct.

Our Founders specifically established the First Amendment in order to protect civil liberties - to prevent the government (the expression of the will of the majority) from infringing upon the rights of an unpopular minority.

An example of LSAT language describing this flaw:

"taking evidence that a claim is believed to be true to constitute evidence that the claim is in fact true"

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 28 (June 1999 LSAT), S1, Q9 (p324)
PrepTest 32 (October 2000 LSAT), S4, Q13 (p141)



False Analogy

Newt Gingrich argued by way of analogy, "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington."

Whether or not that's true, 9/11 is not on the same scale as the Holocaust, those who want to build Park51 are not part of Al Qaeda, and Park51 is not being built by radical Islamists as a symbol of "Muslim Triumphalism," as Gingrich claims at 3:10 in that clip (more on that below).

Additionally, Park51 is not at Ground Zero.

In other words, Gingrich's example treats the two different situations as if they are similar.

In LSAT language:

"treats as similar two cases that are different in a critical respect."

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 29 (October 1999 LSAT), S4, Q25 (p43)
PrepTest 31 (June 2000 LSAT), S3, Q5 (p97)
PrepTest 33 (December 2000 LSAT), S3, Q15 (p172)



Straw Man (Misrepresenting the Argument)

In the same Gingrich interview, Gingrich is also commits a Straw Man argument. In a Straw Man argument, one misrepresents the opponent's position in order to more easily argue against it.

The false claims about the Park51 folks (described in below sections) function as part of a Straw Man argument. By portraying Sharif El-Gamal and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf as radical Islamists, and it becomes easier to argue against their establishment of a community center.

In fact, El-Gamal is a real estate developer (a businessman), and Rauf has been an imam in NYC for nearly 30 years (not exactly off the plane from a terrorist training camp).

In LSAT language:
"makes exaggerations in formulating the claim against which it argues."



Ad Hominem Attack (Personal Attack)

In this flaw, one attacks the source of the argument rather than the argument itself.

Example #1:
Simply because the imam behind Park51 has ties to an organization supporting the Gaza flotilla raid (segment starts ~3:53), this doesn't make him an extremist. It means he supports an organization that supports activism. People of various faiths support this type of activism without supporting terrorism. It has nothing to do with whether it's appropriate for the imam to build Park51.

Example #2:
Taking $305,000 from Saudi Prince Al-Waleed doesn't make the imam an extremist.

After all, the News Corporation's second-largest shareholder (with a $2.3 billion stake) is that very Saudi prince. In other words, taking money from Prince Al-Waleed does not require one to promote radical Islam.

In LSAT language:
"rejects a claim by attacking the proponents of the claim rather than addressing the claim itself"
"attack employers' motives instead of addressing their arguments"
"criticizing the source of a claim rather than examining the claim itself"

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 19 (June 1996 LSAT), S2, Q14 (p24)
PrepTest 26 (June 1998 LSAT), S4, Q4 (p241) (esp. relevant to Park51)
PrepTest 32 (October 2000 LSAT), S2, Q6 (p139)
PrepTest 34 (June 2001 LSAT), S2, Q1 (p194)



Failure to Acknowledge Opposing Evidence

The imam behind Park51 has been imam of a mosque in Lower Manhattan for almost 30 years. He's not new to the U.S. or NYC. He's written 3 books about Islam's role in the West, as well as quite a few articles on various Islam-related subjects.

Furthermore, opponents of Park51 also fail to mention that Rauf was selected by the Bush administration as a paragon of moderate American Islam, and he called himself both a Jew and a Christian when giving a eulogy at an Upper West Side synagogue for Daniel Pearl.

Finally, Glenn Beck and the imam had a perfectly nice conversation on Good Morning America a few years ago. If Beck thought he was extreme back then, you'd think he would have mentioned it.

Those who oppose Park51 and portray Imam Rauf as an extremist neglect to mention these facts on their shows.

As a separate issue, Muslims who work in the Pentagon have been praying there ever since the building was repaired, and no one's ever seemed to mind.

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 30 (December 1999 LSAT), S2, Q2 (p54)
PrepTest 34 (June 2001 LSAT), S2, Q24 (p201)



Part-to-Whole Flaw

This video is guilty of this flaw.

(I picked it simply because it's the most-viewed video on YouTube for the search "ground zero mosque.")

In summary, "Islam contains some extremists, therefore all Muslims are extremists."

Is it right to equate the actions and opinions of a radical minority (Al Qaeda) with the actions and opinions of moderate Muslims? If certain people aren't able to distinguish between terrorists and the majority of moderate Muslims, why should moderate Muslims further confuse things by humoring and accommodating those mistaken beliefs?

Why should they be maligned in the press, and why should their perfectly-clear motives be challenged due to the actions of people from a radical sect within their religion?

In LSAT language:
"improperly draws an inference about the scientific community from a premise about individual scientists"

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 19 (June 1996 LSAT), S4, Q3 (p36)
PrepTest 35 (October 2001 LSAT), S4, S18 (p245)



Confusing a sufficient condition for a necessary condition:

The same video is also guilty of this flaw.

In summary, "extremists want to build more mosques, so if the people in question weren't extremists, they wouldn't want to build more mosques."

Evidence: Extremist -> Want to build mosques

(Flawed) Conclusion: Not extremist -> Not want to build mosques

This is the inverse of the original statement. Statements are logically equivalent to their contrapositives, not their inverses or converses.

Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 31 (October 2000 LSAT), S1, Q10 (p121)
PrepTest 34 (June 2001 LSAT), S3, Q23 (p208)
PrepTest 37 (June 2002 LSAT), S2, Q3 (p296)



Failure to Obey Principle of Local Self-Government

(Failure to obey a general principle is not necessarily a flaw, but accusing someone of inconsistency in their positions makes for a compelling argument. It suggests some opponents are not always driven by the principles they claim.)

There's irony in that those who've never lived in NYC claim the right to determine what happens here. Of course, 9/11 is a national tragedy, but one could broaden it to include a general attack on the West. In that case, perhaps Europe and Canada would have a say as well...

Even in NYC, no one was talking about the planning of Park51 until a New York Post columnist publicized the story and Fox News picked it up. Prior to that time, both Jewish and Christian community leaders in NYC had met with proponents of the project and endorsed it. For quite some time, Muslims have been praying in the dilapidated building where Park51 will be with no problems at all.

What happened to the very conservative principle of local self-government?

Applying this principle to the Park51 situation, if you live outside NYC, and you're not related to any 9/11 victims, what happens in NYC isn't your business.

If one wants to support the general principle that local communities should decide things (rather than the 1st Amendment), take a look at the below-linked polls.

(Now, I know that, on the LSAT, polls and surveys are often flawed, but I have no particular reason to believe there's anything wrong with these two, so I'll throw them out there.)

While NYC as a whole opposes Park51, let's look at Manhattan in particular (since a population of 1.6 million is more of a "community" than a population of 8.4 million).

Both Survey 1 and Survey 2 show that Manhattan residents are in favor of it.



Failure to Obey Principle of Protecting Religious Freedom

Many of those who oppose Park51 usually advocate the practice and expression of religion in public space. (See O'Reilly's "War on Christmas" coverage.)

In fact, Republicans passed a Congressional bill back in 2000 to protect the establishment of houses of worship. It focused on local authorities who attempt to block them under the guise of zoning regulations. Of course, this inadvertently protects the establishment of Park51.

Notably absent from Park51 opposition are religious leaders of other faiths (at the very least, fewer than I might have expected). However, I've seen many express support.

I suspect this is because these religious leaders don't want to set a precedent for banning or discouraging houses of worship from a particular faith. They know that a wingnut from their own religion may commit a terrible act in the future. These leaders are concerned with the protection and promotion of their religions in the long-term. On the other hand, Fox News is more focused on the short-term (their ratings and the upcoming election).

***

Read on for Part 2, where I analyze the claims advanced by Park51 opponents and offer counterarguments.

***

For further watching:

Daily Show: The Parent Company Trap

Daily Show: Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition

Daily Show: Mosque-Erade

Daily Show: Municipal Land-Use Hearing

Keith Olbermann: Special Comment: There Is No 'Ground Zero Mosque'

YouTube: "We've Got To Stop The Mosque At Ground Zero"

Daily Show: Michael Bloomberg


For further reading:

FactCheck.org: Questions About the 'Ground Zero Mosque'

NYC Mayor's Speech Supporting Park51

Top Religious Leaders Denounce Growing Anti-Muslim Sentiment; Express Support for NY Mosque, Community Center

The New Yorker: Park51, the proposed mosque near Ground Zero

Cracked: 3 Reasons the "Ground Zero Mosque" Debate Makes No Sense

AP: Behind the News: Describing the proposed NYC mosque

The Economist: Build that mosque

The Economist: Sense and sensitivity

Fareed Zakaria: Build the Ground Zero Mosque

Slate: Islam is Ground Zero

NYMag: The imbroglio over the ground-zero mosque

NYTimes: News Corp. Gives Republicans $1 Million

LSAT Logic and "Ground Zero Mosque" Arguments, Part 2

This is the 2nd part of a 2-part series on LSAT Logic and the "Ground Zero Mosque."

In the 1st part, I analyze some arguments opposing Park51 and their connections to logical fallacies tested on the LSAT.

In this part, I offer counterarguments to other claims advanced by Park51 opponents.

Reactions to Various Arguments Against Park51

Claim that Ground Zero has Privileged Status as Sacred Ground

The site itself being "sacred ground" is certainly fair. However, New York is a living city. Some people go about their day-to-day lives next to Ground Zero. Cheap souvenir stands and strip clubs are in the immediate vicinity. Park51's short distance from both a strip club and an OTB suggests its backers are tolerant people.

Many non-New Yorkers seem to believe all of Lower Manhattan is a memorial with a 24/7 prohibition on business as usual. Things actually went back to normal soon after it was safe to return.

If it's to be a "victory mosque," it'll have to be much taller than 13 stories. Maybe 13 stories sounds big to those outside NYC, but if you've ever been to Wall St. or Lower Manhattan, you'll know many buildings down there are dozens of stories tall.

If you're creating a brand-new building in Manhattan, you're probably not going to bother making it less than 10 stories if zoning allows you to make it a decent size.

Manhattan's a pretty small island, and real estate tends to be expensive, so builders need all the vertical space they can get to make purchasing land worthwhile.

Park51 won't even be visible from Ground Zero (and vice-versa).

Furthermore, how does being sacred ground mean that one can't have a mosque a few blocks away? 2 long blocks away (the equivalent of 6 normal city blocks) is a decent distance when one considers how tiny Lower Manhattan is. If the ground is too sacred to have a community center containing a Muslim prayer space nearby, perhaps it's also too sacred to have 2 churches within one block. (At the very least, maybe those 2 churches can "protect" Ground Zero from Park51 or "cancel out" its Muslim influence.)

After all, if we're committing the part-to-whole flaw by lumping together moderates and extremists within a religion of over 1 billion people, we might as well extend it and blame religion in general for 9/11. Should we ban all churches and synagogues from Lower Manhattan as well? Since all the 9/11 hijackers were men (and since they were all humans), should we ban all men (and humans) from Lower Manhattan? After all, it's an insult to women (and animals) to have them walking around freely as if it were business as usual.

Sure, it'd be an insult to allow members of Al Qaeda to hold parties there, but let's not forget that Al Qaeda doesn't represent the wishes of all 1.5 billion Muslims.

The First Amendment does not allow for exceptions based on national tragedies. As The Daily Show reminded us, Charlton Heston held the national NRA convention in Denver one week after the Columbine High School shooting. His excellent keynote address discussed the connection between tragedy and blame and the resulting need to defend the Bill of Rights.

The Catholic Church placed a "Center for Dialogue and Prayer" the equivalent of 2 blocks from Auschwitz, and their center actually sounds rather nice.



Claim that the Name "Cordoba House" Symbolizes Triumphalism

Opponents latch on to the idea that calling the Islamic community center by the name "Cordoba House" is meant to invoke the Muslim conquest of the Spanish city of Cordoba.

Rauf says he chose the name to invoke 8th-11th century Cordoba, Spain, a period in which Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived in peace.

I suppose that if we knew nothing about him, we wouldn't know which interpretation to believe.

However, given his background and track record, it seems pretty clear that we should take him at his word.

Furthermore, he appeased opponents on this issue and changed the center's name to the very neutral Park51 (the building's address), which indicates some desire to compromise and avoid confusion.


Concern that We Don't Know How the Imam's Financing It

Some keep raising the question of how Rauf got the ~$4 million for the current buildings, and how he'll get the $100 million for the construction of Park51 itself. They suggest he might get money from conservative Muslim countries.

First, getting ~$4 million from a congregation to establish a new house of worship in NYC probably isn't very difficult. In NYC, donors have money, and wealthy people often donate to their houses of worship.

Second, people involved in fundraising often don't know where their money's coming from until the check arrives.

Third, is it that surprising that some of the money for an Islamic community center might come from an Muslim country? Are there not ties between Jewish organizations in the U.S. and Israeli organizations? Are there not ties between the Catholic Church in Vatican City and Catholic churches in the U.S.? Are there not ties between Prince Al-Waleed of Saudi Arabia, the News Corporation, and the Republican Party? (Prince Al-Waleed has also donated to Harvard and Andover, and I don't see them preaching shari'a.) Has George W. Bush not held hands with, and kissed, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah?



Argument by Analogy that Saudi Arabia Doesn't Allow Churches

That doesn't seem to stop all the hand-holding, kissing, and exchanging of money referenced above.

Fox News keeps pushing the following idea:

"Since Saudi Arabia doesn't allow churches or synagogues, why should we allow mosques?"

Since Fox News and its guests keep putting words in the mouths of 9/11 victims, I'd argue it's insult to 9/11 victims to suggest that we should become more like Saudi Arabia, especially near the site of the World Trade Center.

Discouraging Muslims from exercising their right to build a mosque on private property, based on the idea that neither Saudi Arabia nor Al Qaeda is big on religious freedom, suggests we should lower ourselves to their standard.

In other words, these Park51 opponents suggest we become more like religious extremists and discourage the free exercise of religion, making ourselves more like the people we find abhorrent, not less.



Claim that the Government Should Stop Them From Building

According to a recent Fox News poll, 34% of registered voters believe they do not have the right to build it. For those people, the issue is the legal right.

Just in case anyone's not clear on this, government is not in the business of deciding what sort of speech or religion is "right" or "wrong." It's in the business of allowing and protecting the free exercise of speech and religion.

People's opinions on what's morally right, good, decent, or offensive vary significantly, making opinions regarding decency an unreliable source of authority.

While laws are also open to interpretation, the text of a particular law is (relatively) fixed.

We can't make policy based upon what Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, or Fox News consider to be an acceptable distance from Ground Zero.

Apparently, a few blocks away isn't far enough for them, but at what distance does one say "new mosques can be built north of this particular street, but not south of it?" Where do we draw the line? For how long should that policy remain in effect? Should one's freedoms be dependent upon the popularity of their expression in a particular community?

Following that policy exposes everyone to the tyranny of the majority.



Concern that the Imam Has Not Condemned Hamas / Terrorism

This recent article in the New York Times pretty much covers it.



Claim that 9/11 Victims' Families Don't Want It There

Sure, some don't. But many do. Those who do might be offended if Park51 were not built. Whatever happens, some victims' families will be offended, so we can't satisfy everyone's desires.

And then, of course, there's the issue that the First Amendment does not allow exceptions for simply offending someone.



Claim that Islam is a Violent Religion

Opponents of Park51 often claim Islam is a violent religion, contrary to expressions of peace by many of its members.

Sure, the Qur'an says some things I don't care for, but the Hebrew Bible and New Testament also endorse plenty of hateful and backwards stuff. If you're going to apply strict scrutiny to the Qur'an (and assume that all members of a religion actively endorse every word of their religion's texts), you're obligated to do the same for other religions. Religion today is not the same as religion in the time these texts were written.

Since the texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all endorse violence against nonbelievers, one might reach the conclusion that it wouldn't be decent for any religion to establish houses of worship near Ground Zero. However, no one really follows most of the prescriptions of their religious texts. Furthermore, how many people do you know who actually read their own religion's text, let alone obey a majority of its commandments?


Claim that Building Park51 Lets The Terrorists Win

Imam Rauf's proposed Islamic interfaith community center presents one of the greatest threats to Al Qaeda. It proves that Muslims can happily and successfully live in American society, in peace with neighbors, without oppression from government or from non-Muslims.

All the vitriol against Park51 serves as a recruitment opportunity for Al Qaeda. (Yes, the rest of the world has heard about the controversy.)

On the other hand, Park51 were to be built, it'd serve as a great symbol of American tolerance - proof that America is not at war with the religion of Islam.


For further watching:

Daily Show: The Parent Company Trap

Daily Show: Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition

Daily Show: Mosque-Erade

Daily Show: Municipal Land-Use Hearing

Daily Show: Michael Bloomberg

Keith Olbermann: Special Comment: There Is No 'Ground Zero Mosque'

YouTube: "We've Got To Stop The Mosque At Ground Zero"


For further reading:

FactCheck.org: Questions About the 'Ground Zero Mosque'

NYC Mayor's Speech Supporting Park51

Top Religious Leaders Denounce Growing Anti-Muslim Sentiment; Express Support for NY Mosque, Community Center

The New Yorker: Park51, the proposed mosque near Ground Zero

Cracked: 3 Reasons the "Ground Zero Mosque" Debate Makes No Sense

AP: Behind the News: Describing the proposed NYC mosque

The Economist: Build that mosque

The Economist: Sense and sensitivity

Fareed Zakaria: Build the Ground Zero Mosque

Slate: Islam is Ground Zero

NYMag: The imbroglio over the ground-zero mosque

NYTimes: News Corp. Gives Republicans $1 Million