Great question. The answer is almost never. Our video lesson shows what a false premise looks like because it is one method of how people attack arguments. However, it's generally an easier way to attack an argument (nothing is easier than just saying that the stated assumptions someone is making are bogus).
The LSAT tests our ability to dissect arguments. In flawed arguments, we're almost always assuming that the premises are true and making deductions from there. Almost every question on the LSAT tests your ability to see whether, if the premises are true, the conclusion follows.
This is much more difficult than arguing with premises, but the beauty of this way of argumentation is that if you're granting your opponent the truth of their premises and are still able to show that the conclusions they draw from those premises are false, then it's irrefutable that their argument is flawed since you're not debating the truth of the premises.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!
