A recent court fight over tariffs has produced a fascinating real-world example of a classic LSAT logical flaw.

In this episode of LSAT Logic Applied, Andrew Leahey breaks down an argument made by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in federal court. The agency warned that refunding certain tariffs could take years, pointing to a similar government refund program from the 1990s that also took years to complete. At first glance, that reasoning sounds sensible: if a massive refund program took years before, why wouldn’t another one take years now?

But when we apply LSAT logic, the argument reveals a familiar issue: a weak analogy.

Analogical reasoning depends on the idea that two situations are comparable in the ways that matter. Yet the earlier refund program took place decades ago, under very different technological and administrative conditions. Today’s trade enforcement systems involve digital databases, automated entry systems, and entirely different reporting structures. Without evidence that the two situations share the same operational constraints, the analogy may not support the conclusion as strongly as it appears.

This episode walks through the structure of the argument and shows how the LSAT trains you to dissect claims like this. Along the way, you’ll learn how to identify weak analogies, why they’re common in legal and policy debates, and how small gaps in reasoning can shape big conclusions.

You don’t need to be studying for the LSAT to follow along. The goal is simple: learn how to apply clean logical thinking to messy real-world arguments.