No True Scotsman
Redefining the claim to dodge a counterexample.
What it is
No true Scotsman moves the goalposts. A counterexample appears, and the claim is quietly redefined to exclude it.
The original claim never gets tested, because every challenge is defined away after the fact.
An LSAT-style example
This example is original. It is not a real LSAT question.
No honest lawyer would take that case. Well, several lawyers took it. Then they are not truly honest lawyers.
The flaw: 'Honest' is redefined after the fact to protect the claim. Any counterexample gets defined away.
How to spot it on test day
- Watch for 'true,' 'real,' 'genuine' appearing after a counterexample.
- Ask: would this definition have excluded the counterexample before it was raised?
- The claim becomes unfalsifiable: nothing could ever count against it.
The right answer vs. the trap
The right answer
The correct answer says the argument redefines its terms to exclude counterexamples.
The trap
The trap may call it a bad definition from the start. The flaw is the shifting definition, not the first one.
Find your weak flaws
The free diagnostic scores every question type, including flaw questions, and shows exactly where you are losing points.