Three most common flaws in Logical Reasoning

Sign up for a free 7-day trial of the Demon:
www.lsatdemon....
Get access to all our lesson videos in LSAT Demon:
www.lsatdemon.com

[@noora3211]

i really wish i could attend his classes in person

[@vv5179]

A Correlation verb is stationary, it is not affecting the who/what in the premise, it is just in there, hanging out in the sentence. A Causation verb took is taking action (or took action) the who/what IS doing something, there is movement.

[@JinnLLC]

What I have learned here is order of wording and exactly how information is displayed can change how that information is perceived.

[@jatinder_716]

Your videos are very helpful sir

[@FortressMT]

Very helpful. Ty.

[@sciencefordreamers2115]

Very cool teacher!

[@hzLooster]

I get that in the car situation, the necessary is being confused for the sufficient, and that’s the answer we should look out for. But would another answer to look for be: the sufficient is being confused for the necessary?

[@Trynottoblink]

Yes, because confusing sufficient with necessary entails confusing necessary with sufficient, and vice versa. So for a flaw question the correct answer could be either one.

[@jatinder_716]

Sir,if we can get your lectures live?? We can't reach out to anyone and i found this channel ,so could you help us out?😥

[@briannap7575]

He teaches through lsat demon (it’s a website) and has a podcast thinking lsat!

[@jatinder_716]

Plzz ,if you can teach by picking up a question as an example ,it will be more easy !!

[@willjensen5595]

So smoking increasing the likelihood of one having cancer by 5% is a CAUSAL claim. Yet, the claim that "people who smoke are more likely to get lung cancer" is CORRELATIVE. It seems to me the only difference between these is the quantification of these likelihoods. I can't imagine that it is a statement having numbers or not as being the deciding factor here. So what am I missing?

[@kincaidcrile70]

The 5% increase could be present in either a causal or correlative claim. Causal: Smoking increases chances of lung cancer by 5%. Correlative: People who smoke have a 5% increased chance of lung cancer. The reason for the difference is that in the causal claim, there is a definite effect of smoking on cancer likelihood. In the correlative claim, there is no indication that smoking has the effect of increasing cancer; maybe that 5% increase is due to other lifestyle habits, or a gene that both increases disposition towards smoking and also causes more mutations that could lead to cancer. The way to determine if a claim is causal is to ask yourself the following; given the way the claim is phrased, is the prevalence of the latter variable (y) due to the former (x)? Or do they just happen to coexist together?