1 00:00:19,859 --> 00:00:25,119 So the, the researcher runs a preliminary trial on this new cardiac medication, 2 00:00:25,299 --> 00:00:25,480 right? 3 00:00:26,159 --> 00:00:29,599 And the trial comes back, well, inconclusive. 4 00:00:30,019 --> 00:00:34,060 It, it failed to prove that the medication actually lowers blood pressure. 5 00:00:34,920 --> 00:00:39,659 But then the researcher turns right around and concludes that the medication is 6 00:00:39,699 --> 00:00:41,979 definitely completely useless. 7 00:00:42,439 --> 00:00:44,559 That it, it simply does not work. 8 00:00:46,137 --> 00:00:46,897 Classic. 9 00:00:47,458 --> 00:00:52,077 I mean, that is, that is literally the first trap I used to fall for every single 10 00:00:52,117 --> 00:00:53,057 time on Section Two. 11 00:00:53,798 --> 00:00:56,737 It is a classic LSAT move, yes. 12 00:00:57,257 --> 00:01:02,057 And, and what is happening logically there is what Carl Sagan famously summarized 13 00:01:02,197 --> 00:01:06,777 as, you know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 14 00:01:07,317 --> 00:01:11,878 Or to put it in formal terms, the lack of evidence for the existence of something 15 00:01:12,298 --> 00:01:15,897 does not necessarily prove that it does not exist at all. 16 00:01:16,566 --> 00:01:20,906 Right, because, okay, if I say I checked my backpack and I, 17 00:01:21,107 --> 00:01:25,826 I did not find my keys, that does not mean my keys were annihilated from the 18 00:01:25,967 --> 00:01:26,466 universe. 19 00:01:26,927 --> 00:01:30,366 It just means, uh, maybe I did not look in the side pocket. 20 00:01:30,627 --> 00:01:32,946 Or maybe I left them on the kitchen counter. 21 00:01:34,269 --> 00:01:34,909 Precisely. 22 00:01:35,509 --> 00:01:40,749 But in casual, everyday conversation, we, we collapse that distinction all the time. 23 00:01:41,369 --> 00:01:45,449 If a friend says, hey, is there any evidence that the new coffee shop on Fourth 24 00:01:45,529 --> 00:01:49,869 Street is open yet, and you say, uh, no, I have not seen any proof, 25 00:01:50,409 --> 00:01:53,149 your friend naturally hears, okay, it is closed. 26 00:01:53,869 --> 00:01:57,350 We, we use no proof as a proxy for false. 27 00:01:58,125 --> 00:01:58,664 Yes! 28 00:01:59,105 --> 00:02:02,085 That, that was my exact breakthrough when I was studying! 29 00:02:02,585 --> 00:02:07,484 I realized the test writers are constantly playing on our human cognitive bias. 30 00:02:08,144 --> 00:02:13,664 In real life, if nobody has proven a claim, we practically treat it as fake news. 31 00:02:14,184 --> 00:02:20,024 But on the LSAT, a complete lack of proof just leaves us sitting right at status quo 32 00:02:20,144 --> 00:02:20,904 uncertainty. 33 00:02:21,364 --> 00:02:22,924 We, we just know nothing new! 34 00:02:23,548 --> 00:02:24,287 Exactly. 35 00:02:24,907 --> 00:02:26,887 Status quo uncertainty. 36 00:02:27,447 --> 00:02:29,227 You are, you are stuck in the middle. 37 00:02:30,148 --> 00:02:34,588 Now, there are really two distinct flavors of this flaw that you have to watch for 38 00:02:34,628 --> 00:02:35,787 on test day. 39 00:02:35,847 --> 00:02:40,687 The first one is the simple version we just described: taking no evidence for X, 40 00:02:41,007 --> 00:02:44,227 and leaping straight to therefore X is false. 41 00:02:44,882 --> 00:02:47,283 Okay, and, and what is the second flavor? 42 00:02:48,026 --> 00:02:50,566 The second flavor is a bit more subtle. 43 00:02:51,366 --> 00:02:56,026 It is when an arguer takes one specific, terrible argument for X, 44 00:02:56,587 --> 00:03:02,667 completely dismantles that flawed argument, and then concludes that X itself must be 45 00:03:02,806 --> 00:03:03,186 false. 46 00:03:03,882 --> 00:03:10,281 Oh, like, if a bad lawyer brings in a terrible, completely unreliable witness to 47 00:03:10,421 --> 00:03:15,142 prove the defendant was at the bank at three o clock, and you show that witness is 48 00:03:15,201 --> 00:03:19,141 lying, you have not proven the defendant was somewhere else! 49 00:03:19,837 --> 00:03:23,517 You have only proven that particular witness is a liar. 50 00:03:24,117 --> 00:03:26,378 The defendant might still have been at the bank! 51 00:03:27,217 --> 00:03:31,197 Knocking down a bad premise leaves the conclusion unproven, 52 00:03:31,697 --> 00:03:32,757 not disproven. 53 00:03:33,322 --> 00:03:36,262 Unproven, not disproven. 54 00:03:36,762 --> 00:03:40,681 I, I literally wrote that on a sticky note on my monitor for two months. 55 00:03:41,399 --> 00:03:44,799 So how do we spot this in the wild under time pressure? 56 00:03:45,699 --> 00:03:50,939 You want to look for what I call the sharp about face in the stimulus. 57 00:03:51,019 --> 00:03:55,360 The premise section will be spending all its energy tearing down a single study, 58 00:03:55,799 --> 00:04:01,099 or calling a expert biased, or pointing out a flaw in a survey methodology. 59 00:04:01,159 --> 00:04:03,680 It is all about the weakness of the evidence. 60 00:04:04,401 --> 00:04:08,621 Right, tear, tear down the study, attack the survey. 61 00:04:09,280 --> 00:04:14,679 And then, boom, you hit the conclusion, and the author makes a dramatic jump from 62 00:04:15,239 --> 00:04:21,659 this evidence is weak to therefore, this claim is categorically false or this 63 00:04:21,799 --> 00:04:23,039 event cannot happen. 64 00:04:24,276 --> 00:04:25,996 That about face! 65 00:04:26,436 --> 00:04:31,737 It goes from, uh, we do not know, straight to, we know it is definitely not true! 66 00:04:32,482 --> 00:04:34,303 That pivot is your signal. 67 00:04:34,882 --> 00:04:39,682 And when you see that structural pivot, you immediately go to the answer choices 68 00:04:39,962 --> 00:04:42,902 looking for abstract descriptions of that mistake. 69 00:04:43,802 --> 00:04:49,523 LSAC loves phrasing it like, conflates a lack of proof for a claim with proof that 70 00:04:49,583 --> 00:04:50,562 the claim is false. 71 00:04:51,302 --> 00:04:56,602 Or, treats failure to establish a position as conclusive evidence against that 72 00:04:56,662 --> 00:04:57,102 position. 73 00:04:59,956 --> 00:05:04,916 They have like, five standard, super legalistic ways of saying the exact same 74 00:05:04,996 --> 00:05:06,297 logical error, do not they? 75 00:05:07,026 --> 00:05:07,946 They really do. 76 00:05:08,446 --> 00:05:13,806 It is the same skeleton dressed in different abstract vocabulary every time. 77 00:05:14,447 --> 00:05:19,926 Okay, so here is the practical test I used when I was stuck between two choices, 78 00:05:20,587 --> 00:05:25,667 especially on those tough Level Four and Level Five Logical Reasoning questions. 79 00:05:25,866 --> 00:05:28,206 I call it the test of replacement. 80 00:05:28,944 --> 00:05:31,524 Tell me about the test of replacement. 81 00:05:32,294 --> 00:05:36,214 You scratch out the author's dramatic, sweeping conclusion, 82 00:05:36,634 --> 00:05:40,835 and you replace it in your head with, therefore, we remain uncertain, 83 00:05:40,934 --> 00:05:43,475 or therefore, we do not know yet. 84 00:05:44,154 --> 00:05:48,715 If that replacement conclusion actually follows logically from the premises, 85 00:05:49,174 --> 00:05:52,814 then you know the author committed the Absence of Evidence fallacy! 86 00:05:53,587 --> 00:06:00,347 Ah, that is brilliant, Nora, because if we do not know yet is the actual 87 00:06:00,487 --> 00:06:07,227 legitimate deduction, then jumping to definitely false exposes the unearned gap 88 00:06:07,287 --> 00:06:08,047 immediately. 89 00:06:08,834 --> 00:06:09,814 Exactly! 90 00:06:10,294 --> 00:06:16,014 If the premises only justify saying we do not know, but the author said it is false, 91 00:06:16,534 --> 00:06:19,274 you have caught them red handed committing the flaw. 92 00:06:19,774 --> 00:06:24,255 You just grab the matching abstract answer choice and move on in forty five seconds. 93 00:06:26,384 --> 00:06:27,625 Forty five seconds. 94 00:06:28,424 --> 00:06:31,464 Clean, repeatable, no drama. 95 00:06:32,009 --> 00:06:33,490 And no overthinking. 96 00:06:34,009 --> 00:06:35,829 Unproven stays unproven.