Identify the flaw in the argument: “Everyone on my mother’s side of the family loves baked mac and cheese. So, since Justin Theroux is not on my mother’s side of my family, he must not like mac and cheese.”
Answer
This is the fallacy of the inverse. Whenever an argument gives you a conditional statement, then gives you the opposite of the sufficient condition and tries to use that to conclude the opposite of the necessary condition, it commits an inverse fallacy. In this example, even if Justin Theroux is not in my family and thus does not fulfill this sufficient condition for liking mac and cheese, he may still like mac and cheese for some other reason. So we cannot say definitively that he does not like mac and cheese.
Want to receive daily LSAT practice delivered right into your inbox? Sign up here for our LSAT Question of the Day emails!
Related Posts
Search the Blog
Free LSAT Practice Account
Sign up for a free Blueprint LSAT account and get access to a free trial of the Self-Paced Course and a free practice LSAT with a detailed score report, mind-blowing analytics, and explanatory videos.
Learn More
Popular Posts
-
-
-
-
General LSAT Advice How to Get a 180 on the LSAT -
Entertainment Revisiting Elle's LSAT Journey from Legally Blonde