Explain the discrepancy
52 flashcards covering Explain the discrepancy for the LSAT Logical Reasoning section.
Explaining a discrepancy involves identifying and resolving inconsistencies or contradictions in arguments, evidence, or information. For example, you might encounter two statements that seem to conflict, such as one claiming a policy reduced crime while another shows rising rates in certain areas. This skill requires careful analysis to pinpoint the source of the mismatch—whether it's due to flawed data, differing contexts, or unstated assumptions—and then explain how they can be reconciled or why the discrepancy exists.
On the LSAT, discrepancy questions appear in Logical Reasoning as part of flaw, strengthen/weaken, or explain questions, often testing your ability to spot gaps in reasoning or evaluate evidence critically. Common traps include assuming all differences are irreconcilable or overlooking subtle nuances in language. Focus on comparing key elements like assumptions, definitions, and contexts to build a clear explanation. Always start by mapping out the core argument to avoid confusion.
Terms (52)
- 01
What is a discrepancy?
A discrepancy is an apparent inconsistency or contradiction between two or more pieces of information, statements, or events that seem to conflict but may be reconciled with additional context.
- 02
Explain question type
An explain question on the LSAT asks you to resolve or clarify a discrepancy by selecting the answer that provides a logical explanation for why the seemingly contradictory information can both be true.
- 03
Identifying a discrepancy
Identifying a discrepancy involves recognizing conflicting elements in the passage, such as opposing facts, unexpected outcomes, or inconsistencies between evidence and conclusions.
- 04
Role of new information
In explain questions, new information serves to bridge the gap between conflicting elements by providing a fact or scenario that makes the discrepancy understandable.
- 05
Common discrepancy scenarios
Common discrepancy scenarios include situations where statistical data contradicts expectations, behaviors don't align with motives, or events occur contrary to predictions.
- 06
Strategy for explain questions
A strategy for explain questions is to first pinpoint the exact conflict in the passage and then evaluate answer choices that directly address and resolve that specific inconsistency without introducing new problems.
- 07
Difference from strengthen questions
Unlike strengthen questions, which support an argument, explain questions focus on resolving a paradox or discrepancy rather than bolstering a conclusion.
- 08
Trap answers in explain questions
Trap answers in explain questions often exaggerate the discrepancy, introduce unrelated information, or fail to fully resolve the conflict, leading test-takers to select incorrect options.
- 09
Evaluating answer choices
When evaluating answer choices for explain questions, check if the option logically connects the conflicting elements without creating additional inconsistencies or relying on assumptions not supported by the passage.
- 10
Hidden assumptions in discrepancies
Hidden assumptions in discrepancies are unstated beliefs that, if revealed, could explain why the conflicting information aligns, such as overlooked variables or contextual factors.
- 11
Cause and effect discrepancies
Cause and effect discrepancies occur when an expected outcome does not happen, and explaining them involves identifying intervening factors that alter the typical relationship.
- 12
Statistical discrepancies
Statistical discrepancies arise when data points deviate from trends, and resolution often involves accounting for sample biases, external influences, or measurement errors.
- 13
Temporal discrepancies
Temporal discrepancies involve timing conflicts, such as events happening out of sequence, which can be explained by delays, simultaneous occurrences, or revised timelines.
- 14
Paradox resolution
Paradox resolution is the process of dissolving an apparent contradiction by introducing a reconciling factor that shows the statements are not truly opposed.
- 15
Logical fallacies creating discrepancies
Logical fallacies can create discrepancies by misrepresenting arguments, such as through hasty generalizations or false dichotomies, which explain questions might address indirectly.
- 16
Appeal to ignorance in discrepancies
An appeal to ignorance might contribute to a discrepancy by assuming something is true because it hasn't been proven false, and resolving it requires evidence to clarify the unknown.
- 17
Post hoc fallacy in discrepancies
The post hoc fallacy, assuming one event causes another just because it follows, can lead to discrepancies that are explained by showing correlation does not imply causation.
- 18
Straw man fallacy
A straw man fallacy distorts an opponent's argument, creating a discrepancy that can be resolved by addressing the original argument rather than the misrepresented version.
- 19
Ad hominem in arguments
Ad hominem attacks shift focus to personal characteristics, potentially causing discrepancies in logical flow, which are resolved by sticking to evidence-based reasoning.
- 20
Begging the question
Begging the question assumes the conclusion in the premise, leading to discrepancies that are explained by identifying the circular logic and providing independent support.
- 21
Circular reasoning
Circular reasoning repeats the conclusion as a premise, creating a discrepancy between claim and evidence, resolvable by demanding new supporting information.
- 22
Slippery slope fallacy
The slippery slope fallacy exaggerates consequences, causing discrepancies between predicted and actual outcomes, which can be resolved by examining real probabilities.
- 23
False dilemma
A false dilemma presents only two options when more exist, leading to discrepancies in choices, resolvable by identifying additional alternatives.
- 24
Hasty generalization
Hasty generalization draws a broad conclusion from insufficient evidence, creating discrepancies with counterexamples, explained by gathering more data.
- 25
Overgeneralization
Overgeneralization applies a rule too widely, causing discrepancies in specific cases, which are resolved by noting exceptions or limitations.
- 26
Understatement in arguments
Understatement minimizes the significance of evidence, potentially creating discrepancies with the actual impact, resolvable by accurately assessing the evidence's weight.
- 27
Exaggeration in passages
Exaggeration overstates facts, leading to discrepancies between claims and reality, which can be explained by correcting the hyperbole with precise details.
- 28
Irony as a discrepancy
Irony presents a situation where the outcome contradicts expectations, and explaining it involves understanding the intended contrast or sarcasm.
- 29
Sarcasm in passages
Sarcasm uses irony to convey the opposite meaning, creating discrepancies that are resolved by interpreting the speaker's true intent.
- 30
Misleading metaphors
Misleading metaphors create discrepancies by implying inaccurate comparisons, which are explained by clarifying the literal versus figurative meanings.
- 31
Analogies gone wrong
Analogies gone wrong draw parallels that don't hold, causing discrepancies, resolvable by testing the similarity of the compared elements.
- 32
Counterexamples to arguments
Counterexamples directly contradict a general claim, and explaining the discrepancy involves reconciling the exception with the rule.
- 33
Hypothetical scenarios
Hypothetical scenarios introduce imaginary situations that might create discrepancies with real events, resolvable by applying logical conditions.
- 34
Conditional statements
Conditional statements link antecedents and consequents, and discrepancies arise if conditions aren't met, explained by verifying the if-then relationships.
- 35
Necessary vs. sufficient conditions
Discrepancies occur when confusing necessary and sufficient conditions, such as assuming A is sufficient for B when it's only necessary, resolvable by clarifying the distinctions.
- 36
Biconditional statements
Biconditional statements require both directions to hold, and discrepancies form if one fails, explained by checking mutual implications.
- 37
Contrapositives in logic
Contrapositives reverse and negate conditional statements, helping resolve discrepancies by providing equivalent logical forms.
- 38
Syllogisms
Syllogisms are deductive arguments with two premises, and discrepancies in conclusions can be explained by ensuring the premises are valid and related.
- 39
Enthymemes
Enthymemes are arguments with an unstated premise, creating discrepancies if the assumption is flawed, resolvable by making it explicit.
- 40
Dilemmas in reasoning
Dilemmas present two undesirable options, leading to discrepancies in choices, explained by finding a third path or reevaluating the options.
- 41
Red herrings
Red herrings are irrelevant distractions that create discrepancies in focus, resolvable by ignoring them and sticking to the core issue.
- 42
Complex question fallacy
The complex question fallacy embeds a false assumption in a question, causing discrepancies in answers, explained by breaking it into parts.
- 43
Loaded language
Loaded language biases statements emotionally, leading to discrepancies in interpretation, resolvable by stripping away the emotional content.
- 44
Ambiguity in terms
Ambiguity in terms allows multiple meanings, creating discrepancies, which are explained by defining the term clearly in context.
- 45
Vagueness in arguments
Vagueness leaves statements unclear, causing discrepancies, resolvable by seeking precise definitions or details.
- 46
Equivocation
Equivocation shifts word meanings within an argument, producing discrepancies, explained by maintaining consistent definitions.
- 47
Composition fallacy
The composition fallacy assumes that what is true of parts is true of the whole, leading to discrepancies, resolvable by examining the whole separately.
- 48
Division fallacy
The division fallacy assumes that what is true of the whole is true of its parts, creating discrepancies, explained by verifying individual components.
- 49
Advanced resolution techniques
Advanced resolution techniques involve layering multiple explanations or considering hierarchical factors to fully address complex discrepancies in passages.
- 50
Psychological biases in discrepancies
Psychological biases, like confirmation bias, can cause discrepancies by favoring certain information, resolvable by objectively reviewing all evidence.
- 51
Quantitative discrepancies
Quantitative discrepancies involve numerical inconsistencies, such as mismatched data sets, explained by accounting for variables like scale or units.
- 52
Qualitative discrepancies
Qualitative discrepancies arise from descriptive contradictions, like differing accounts of an event, resolvable by finding common underlying truths.