Day 21 of 168 · Week 4
Day 21 / 168 Week 4 of 28 Phase 2: Logical Reasoning Deep Dive

Flaw II: Sampling, Representativeness & Statistical Flaws

🕑 ~75 min · Archetype A — LR Deep Dive

Recap: Flaw, Part 2 — Statistics and Sampling

A second major Flaw cluster, distinct from causal flaws: arguments that misuse a statistic or generalize from an unrepresentative sample.

1. Unrepresentative Sample

A survey or study group that isn't representative of the population the conclusion is about (self-selected respondents, a narrow demographic, a non-random sample).

2. Percentage vs. Raw Number Confusion

An argument that treats "the percentage increased" as if it proves "the raw number increased" (or vice versa) — these can diverge if the total population size also changed.

3. Small Sample Size

Drawing a general conclusion from too few data points to be statistically meaningful.

4. Survivorship-Style Bias

Drawing conclusions only from the cases that remain observable, ignoring cases that dropped out or failed silently.

Practice items on this page are curriculum-authored in LSAT style; they are not official LSAC questions. Real drilling happens on LawHub — see the assignment below.

Q1. Argument: "The percentage of the company's revenue from software rose from 20% to 40% last year. So software revenue must have doubled." What's the flaw?

A. A causal flaw
B. Confuses percentage change with the underlying raw-number change, ignoring that total revenue could have changed too
C. A sampling flaw
D. A conditional flaw
Correct answer: B. If total company revenue shrank, a rising software percentage doesn't require software revenue itself to have doubled — the percentage and the raw number can diverge.

LawHub drill-tier LR section, untimed. Scan for Flaw stems involving statistics or samples.

An RC maintenance day tomorrow — Main Point and Primary Purpose in RC — before the third and final Flaw day, on conditional-logic flaws.