LSAT practice using lawhub: How to Identify Dual Speaker Reasoning Flaws

As we've previously written about, this summer, the LSAC quietly ended its partnership with Khan Academy and all free official LSAT prep materials are now available only at lawhub.lsac.org. Four official PrepTests are now offered, but these PrepTests do not offer explanations. So, it might be a good idea to save them for closer to your test day as a measure of how you're performing, instead of as a tool for learning and improving.

However, another resource, the official "Drill Sets", includes an extra 168 practice problems and the vast majority of them have never been included in prior LSAT prep materials.  This article is based on our YouTube playlist on Lawhub's logical reasoning drill set #1.

In the world of LSAT preparation, one of the trickiest challenges is tackling questions that involve dual speakers presenting arguments. These types of questions often ask you to identify reasoning flaws in both speakers' arguments, making it essential to understand how each speaker's conclusion and reasoning are structured.

In this post, we’ll break down the key strategies for identifying dual speaker reasoning flaws, using an example from the Lawhub LSAT Logical Reasoning Drill Set #1. Let's dive in.

How to Identify Dual Speaker Reasoning Flaws

Understanding Dual Speaker Reasoning Flaws

When confronted with a question asking about reasoning flaws in two speakers' arguments, the first step is to clearly identify the conclusion each speaker is drawing. This step is crucial because it sets the foundation for recognizing where the flaws lie.

Take the following example:

• Speaker 1 (Felicia) argues that her car, the X500, is one of the most reliable cars ever made because it has been running for 10 years without needing repair.
• Speaker 2 (Matt) counters Felicia’s claim by arguing that the X500 is completely unreliable, based on his aunt's experience of frequently having the car in the shop.

Key Reasoning Flaws

Both speakers make the mistake of drawing general conclusions based on very limited evidence. Felicia's claim of reliability is based on a single data point—her own car's performance. Similarly, Matt’s conclusion about the car being unreliable is drawn from his aunt’s experience.

This is a classic reasoning flaw called hasty generalization—making a broad conclusion from insufficient data. In LSAT terms, the argument is flawed because neither speaker has a large enough sample size to justify their conclusions.

How to Approach These Questions on the LSAT

When answering questions like this on the LSAT, you should:

1. Identify the conclusion: Look for each speaker's conclusion and distinguish it from the factual premises.
2. Predict the flaw: Recognize common flaws, such as hasty generalizations or unrepresentative sample sizes.
3. Eliminate wrong answers: Go through the answer choices, eliminating options that don’t describe the flaw accurately. For instance, if an answer suggests an attack on character but the speakers didn’t criticize each other personally, you can rule it out.

Conclusion

Dual speaker reasoning flaw questions test your ability to evaluate two contrasting arguments and pinpoint the logical shortcomings in each. By practicing these types of questions and becoming familiar with common reasoning flaws, you'll be better equipped to tackle them efficiently on test day.

Remember, focus on identifying conclusions, predicting flaws, and eliminating irrelevant answer choices. This systematic approach will help you succeed on the LSAT!

We highly recommend using these tools to give yourself a free leg up on prep for the now Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension only version of the LSAT, and please consider contacting us for a free tutoring consultation if you need help beyond what is available at Lawhub!