1
00:00:19,879 --> 00:00:26,299
The moment a test taker sees an answer
choice that says, relies on an ambiguous use

2
00:00:26,339 --> 00:00:31,839
of a key term, their brain just turns off
and they hit select.

3
00:00:31,920 --> 00:00:36,139
They think, well, the argument felt messy,
so this must be it.

4
00:00:37,907 --> 00:00:40,266
I, I used to do that all the time.

5
00:00:40,746 --> 00:00:42,226
It sounds so smart, right?

6
00:00:42,466 --> 00:00:45,967
Like, oh, the author was ambiguous, case
closed.

7
00:00:46,771 --> 00:00:52,051
Right, but genuine equivocation is
actually really, really specific.

8
00:00:52,712 --> 00:00:58,672
It requires one single word to shift
meanings midstream, like mid argument.

9
00:00:59,471 --> 00:01:04,931
Take the classic example: I have a legal
right to eat potato chips for every meal,

10
00:01:05,411 --> 00:01:07,851
therefore, it is the right thing to do.

11
00:01:08,486 --> 00:01:14,087
Ah, so right shifted from legal
entitlement to moral correctness.

12
00:01:14,757 --> 00:01:15,517
Precisely.

13
00:01:16,177 --> 00:01:21,537
And to test if that is actually happening,
I use what I call the Synonym

14
00:01:21,797 --> 00:01:23,017
Substitution Test.

15
00:01:23,617 --> 00:01:25,418
It takes maybe 15 seconds.

16
00:01:26,157 --> 00:01:31,517
You replace every instance of the suspect
word with a plain English definition.

17
00:01:32,215 --> 00:01:36,315
Okay, wait, walk me through that with a
real argument, like,

18
00:01:36,355 --> 00:01:38,034
like the classic treasurer case.

19
00:01:38,694 --> 00:01:45,274
Okay, imagine a treasurer saying, our city
cannot afford to buy new park benches

20
00:01:45,315 --> 00:01:45,714
this year.

21
00:01:46,454 --> 00:01:52,414
And then a council member responds, but
can we really afford not to invest in our

22
00:01:52,434 --> 00:01:53,194
public spaces?

23
00:01:53,882 --> 00:01:56,721
Okay, let me try swapping the definitions.

24
00:01:57,501 --> 00:02:02,982
In the treasurer's premise, afford means
having actual budget funds available,

25
00:02:03,321 --> 00:02:04,342
like cash in the bank.

26
00:02:05,181 --> 00:02:09,461
But in the council member's question, can
we afford not to,

27
00:02:10,382 --> 00:02:15,062
afford suddenly means avoiding bad long
term consequences.

28
00:02:15,757 --> 00:02:16,417
Exactly.

29
00:02:16,917 --> 00:02:21,757
If you plug those definitions back in, the
argument collapses because they are

30
00:02:21,837 --> 00:02:25,497
talking past each other using the exact
same spelling.

31
00:02:26,197 --> 00:02:28,697
That is a true equivocation flaw.

32
00:02:29,779 --> 00:02:34,500
But people pick that choice even when the
word does not shift at all.

33
00:02:35,132 --> 00:02:36,331
Oh, constantly.

34
00:02:36,871 --> 00:02:42,691
In fact, if you look at how LSAC writes
these questions, choices like ambiguous use

35
00:02:42,732 --> 00:02:47,851
of a term or shifts meaning of a key
phrase are wrong answer traps.

36
00:02:48,331 --> 00:02:51,911
They just are wrong 8 or 9 times out of 10
when you see them.

37
00:02:53,328 --> 00:02:55,688
8 or 9 times out of 10?

38
00:02:56,027 --> 00:02:57,887
That is absurdly high.

39
00:02:58,087 --> 00:03:00,548
That is practically a trap by default.

40
00:03:02,194 --> 00:03:03,014
It really is.

41
00:03:03,375 --> 00:03:05,114
It is pure jargon bait.

42
00:03:05,795 --> 00:03:10,335
The test makers know that when students
feel confused by a dense passage,

43
00:03:10,854 --> 00:03:14,694
they look for sophisticated sounding
choices to bail them out.

44
00:03:16,324 --> 00:03:22,824
I, I remember on my very first practice
test block, I fell for that exact trap three

45
00:03:22,904 --> 00:03:24,545
times in a single section.

46
00:03:25,224 --> 00:03:29,484
I saw ambiguous term, thought, yeah, that
reasoning was definitely muddy,

47
00:03:29,964 --> 00:03:34,504
and clicked it without ever checking if a
second definition even existed in the

48
00:03:34,564 --> 00:03:34,924
text.

49
00:03:35,548 --> 00:03:38,448
And that is why you need a hard rule.

50
00:03:39,127 --> 00:03:41,967
I call it the 5 Second Elimination Rule.

51
00:03:42,807 --> 00:03:48,347
If you cannot immediately point to the
exact word on the page and state its two

52
00:03:48,467 --> 00:03:53,787
different meanings in plain English, you
cross that answer choice off instantly.

53
00:03:54,442 --> 00:03:59,802
If you cannot name both meanings in five
seconds, it is not equivocation.

54
00:04:00,342 --> 00:04:03,902
Move on and find the actual structural gap
or causal flaw.

55
00:04:04,711 --> 00:04:06,792
That is all there is to it.

56
00:04:07,532 --> 00:04:13,191
Do not let fancy language trick you into
picking a flaw that is not on the page.