Flaws of Logic #2: Fast-Food Restaurant Moratorium

Hi readers,

Sorry I haven’t written in a while—things have been a little crazy on my end. But I was listening to a story on NPR and wanted to write a post about it.

I’m sure many of you have heard about the newly approved one-year moratorium on the development of new fast-food restaurants in L.A. The measure was passed in order to encourage healthier eateries to open in the area. This entry won’t be discussing the merits or drawbacks of the moratorium, but rather a comparison that one person made about it. An NPR commentator cited a Los Angeles Times article wherein a Restaurant Association consultant told the paper that the moratorium is like “saying we’re not going to allow anyone to sell Chevrolets because we want people to buy nothing but Mercedes Benzes” (listen to the story here).

The consultant’s statement appears to be an example of an irrelevant comparison. In order for a comparison to be relevant, the items being compared have to be equivalent in all aspects relevant to the matter being discussed. It seems clear that there are relevant differences between a comparison of fast food and healthier options when placed next to Chevys and Benzes:

a.) The moratorium doesn’t ban fast food restaurants or the sell of fast food; rather, it just prohibits new fast food stores from being opened. The consultant’s comparison proceeds as though the former is true, even though it clearly isn’t.

b.) Part of this confusion may arise from a lack of a clear meaning of “fast food” and “fast-food restaurant” (for the purposes of the moratorium). Does the definition involve a food’s nutrition content, method of preparation, both, or some completely different criteria? Admittedly, I haven’t seen the actual text of the measure, so I may just be ignorant of the fact that a definition is incorporated there. But if not, without a clear definition of terms, it seems nearly impossible to determine what a relevant comparison is.

c.) My best guess is that the consultant wanted to focus on the price difference between fast food and healthy food, relating it to relatively inexpensive Chevys and relatively costly Benzes. But the cost difference in the types of food is coupled with a fundamental difference in public safety—assuming that fast-food usually has low nutritive value and therefore negatively affects public health (an assumption that I think is valid), while healthier options by comparison are less likely to have such a negative affect. As far as I know, Chevys aren’t less safe than Benzes.

Perhaps a more relevant comparison would be: “It’s like saying we’re not going to allow anyone to buy cars from dealerships for one year whose best-selling products notoriously hazardous to consumers’ health because we only want people to buy cars that we view as safer.” And upon closer analysis, one may even find that my revised comparison doesn’t pass muster. That’s why comparisons are notoriously difficult to form between two sets of entities—all you need is one relevant difference between the pairs being compared, and the reasoning can crumble.

Can you think of any examples of irrelevant comparisons?

Thinking like a lawyer?

I often hear people say that one of the biggest but most rewarding challenges of law school is learning how to "think like a lawyer." Legal reasoning, as I understand it, should be foreign to most of us. In fact, it’s largely based on the logical reasoning and argumentation skills that many of us have acquired during our high school and college years.

Last semester, I stumbled upon a really neat article by Georgetown University professor Charles King entitled “How to Think.” I imagine of this will largely be old news for most of you, but I think the article does a great job of laying out basic points on how to reason logically and how to structure a valid argument. In addition, the piece contains one of my all-time favorite quotes:

“Some opinions are well-formed and intelligently reasoned; others are off-the-cuff and ignorant…. Tolerance means being willing to listen to others; it does not mean you have to agree with them or, after hearing their viewpoint, even take them seriously.”

Here I think King makes an important point that is particularly relevant given the state of much of our discourse today. At the risk of seeming partisan, I find that discussions often either a.) only include members who already largely agree on the issue at debate (e.g. political talk radio) or b.) seek to include multiple views of people that often talk past one another without actually wrestling with the logic that underlies those positions (CNN and NPR anyone?). While it’s certainly important to consider counterarguments and take alternate viewpoints into account, it’s important to remember those viewpoints are only as good as the reasoning that underlies them. If that reasoning turns out to be faulty, the argument must be amended or rejected.

Thoughts on the LSAT

When I was a freshman, I remember going to a talk given by a Kaplan Test Prep employee. The one take home point she emphasized from the outset was: “No matter what you do, don’t go into the test cold.” While fairly obvious, her advice stuck with me throughout my college career. Now that it’s time for me to start prepping in earnest, here are my thoughts on the process:

In my research, I’ve often heard that the June administration is the best time to take the LSAT if applying to law school in the fall (for example, see here). I’m not really sure why the June exam is better than the October for college students, as the latter gives them more time to prepare for the test, and from what I understand, schools don’t really start looking at applications until November anyway. Of course, this assumes that one has spent the summer getting the rest of ones application materials prepared so that come fall, the LSAT (and perhaps recommendations as well) are the only items needed to complete the application.

Of course, for those students who are really on top of their game, you can always take the test as a junior as well. One of my classmates who will be abroad senior fall took the February test junior year, and now that’s one less thing she has to worry about as a senior. For me, I knew that there was absolutely no way I could devote adequate attention to prepping for the test during the school year, given my academic course load and extracurricular activities during the semester. Had I attempted to take the June exam, my score would have almost certainly suffered as a result. So given the variety of prep options available to test-takers, I’m going to have to side with the orthodoxy here: Do what works for you. Or rather, do what’s going to help you get the most points come test day. For me, I knew a class was the way to go because a.) it keeps me accountable on a schedule and b.) getting feedback on my progress is helpful.

As far as my personal progress is concerned, I think I’m in a pretty good situation right now. My prep class concludes at the end of July, giving me all of August and September to work on my own. My plan is to push through practice problems and full length tests throughout August, as my internship will be over and I’ll have even more free time to prepare. Come September, when I return to school, I hope to treat my LSAT prep just like another class (although this will admittedly be challenging when the more immediately pressing business of the school year returns). I’ll write more about the specifics of my August/September study schedule in a later entry.

Flaws of Logic #1: Lou Dobbs and U.S. Language Policy

Anyone who's prepping for or has taken the LSAT knows the premium the test places on strong logical reasoning skills. One of the features I hope to get up and running on this blog is a regularly occurring "Flaws of Logic" section where I look at news stories (or my personal experience) and discuss the logical flaws that appear to be pretty prevalent in the today's discourse.


I happened upon Lou Dobbs' CNN program last night as he was interviewing a leader of a organization that advocates making English the official language of the United States. Dobbs opened the segment citing a poll showing that 83% of Americans supported making English the official language of the United States, and 15% were opposed (I may be misremembering the numbers slightly, the outcome remains clear). He then went on to ask the guest why Congress wasn't taking immediate action to realize this policy, as if the poll alone made this policy the obvious solution. Clearly, it does not.

Dobbs appears to have fallen victim to a flaw known as argumentum ad numerum, which is Latin for "appeal to numbers". This flaw occurs when a person reasons that, since many people believe something to be true or right, it therefore is true or right. I'm sure that all of you can think of many examples where this is clearly not the case (for me, slavery and the geocentric model of the solar system immediately come to mind).

I do think it's important to note here that public sentiment can certainly be a useful tool in policy discussions. As representatives for their constituencies, the desires of voters should form a part of legislator’s decision-making process. However, it seems overly simplistic to say that voter opinion should be the only thing that influences politicians. While I'm sure there's an interesting and vigorous debate to be held among the various sides of the issue, I think viewers would have been much better served by a conversation regarding the merits of drawbacks of the language policy before asking why Congress has yet to act on it.

Getting you up to speed

Applying to law school is (not surprisingly) a very substantial undertaking. With the LSAT, recommendations, essays, and various forms, the process requires a strong ability to manage ones time and resources. As a student, having a full course load doesn't help much either. Fortunately, I'm trying to get a leg up on the process by using my summer vacation to get through as much as I can so that I can hit the ground running. Here's my progress thus far:

LSAT: Currently, I'm enrolled in a Kaplan course, and thus far it's going quite well. After my class ends later this month, I want to continue preparing by taking more practice tests and focusing on my weaknesses (Logic Games, anyone?). I will be taking the October administration of the exam.

Recommendations: I'm planning on getting two recommendations from professors that I've worked with and know well at school. My goal is to sit down with each of them within the first week of so of the school year, and have a discussion about the process and what would be needed of them.

Personal Statement: About a week ago, I started working on my personal statement. Right now the focus is on my life experience, and how that experience would allow me to make unique contributions to a law school. I know it has a long way to go, but I just want to get it all on paper and then spend a lot of time really refining it until it's where I want it to be.

Ideally, I want to have the personal statement done by the time I return to campus in September so that I can devote most of my (admittedly limited) free time during that month to LSAT review. By the time I finish taking the LSAT, I want my application to be complete and ready to go to the Admissions Offices.

Welcome!

Hi all, and welcome to my new blog! My name is Welton and I am just starting my journey to a law degree. Here's a little bit about myself: I'm a rising senior in college (on the east coast), studying Linguistics and African American Studies. I'm applying to law schools this fall to be a member of the class of 2012. I plan to use this blog to write about the process, and all things law-related that interest me. I hope you enjoy it!