Flaw Practice – Unicycles
- Jan 01, 2020
- Question of the Day
- Reviewed by: Matt Riley
Identify the flaw in the argument: “Only 10% of people who drive a car have ever been involved in an accident, but almost 90% of those who ride unicycles have been in an accident. Clearly then, more people have been in unicycle accidents than have been in car accidents.”
This is a percentage versus amount flaw. Percentage vs. amount is one of the sneakier fallacies on the LSAT. While it may look like the 90% of unicycle users has to be a way bigger number than only 10% of drivers, we cannot say that for sure. The reason is that a LOT more people drive cars than ride unicycles. So even if only 10% of drivers have been in an accident, that still may be a way bigger number of people than 90% of unicycle riders. The point is, you can never use premises about percentages to prove conclusions about definite amounts and you can never use premises about amounts to prove conclusions about percentages.
Want to receive daily LSAT practice delivered right into your inbox? Sign up here for our LSAT Question of the Day emails!
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
logic games Game Over: LSAC Says Farewell to Logic Games
General LSAT Advice How to Get a 180 on the LSAT
Entertainment Revisiting Elle's LSAT Journey from Legally Blonde