Subscription pricing
Hello, on all of my preptests, even after reviewing all the lessons and explanations I still miss Flaw and MSS questions, is there something I missed in the lessons, or some concept I haven't understood that is common with these two types
0
5 comments
For MSS it's basically just asking: what do you know? (Based on the info above) MSS always baits you into making further assumptions that seem legitimate. But the answer is always something more basic.
@sarkisp23965 and @peterpetrousian462 Thanks for the tips ill try these out and see if they help
@peterpetrousian462 Sweet list. Great advice!
For MSS, MSS is almost all careful reading - slow down reading the stimulus, try drilling these questions and force yourself to take a full minute on the stem
For flaws, one easy way to start is memorizing your flaw types, as they frequently repeat. JY has a list in the lessons, but I would recommend keeping your own list in a notebook or on flashcards - you should be able to rattle them out.
Some of my flaw types include:
Tradition/authority flaw
Source flaw/ad hom attack
Unclear term/equivocation
Experiment error: no control group, no baseline
Correlation implies causation
Circular reasoning (conclusion is a restatement of/used as evidence by the premises)
Descriptive (is) vs. prescriptive distinction (should)
Taking probability (60% chance) for certainty (we will win)
Taking best probability of many outcomes (12%) as more likely than not to occur (50%+)
Confusing % with a quantity
Alternate cause/alternate explanation of a given problem (often in context that if this one cause/explanation does not hold, effect or phenomenon does not hold)
Concluding that because an argument fails, the opposite outcome is true
Sampling error (surveys must be representative, random)
overgeneralization
Part v. Whole flaws
Relativity flaws (the smellier donkey may not actually be smelly)
Faulty analogy (dentists are like ostriches?)
False dichotomy: dividing group into two groups when whole should not be divided into two
Necessity/sufficiency error aka "the oldest trick in the book): if A->B, B so A
Internal contradiction in argument (rare)
The concept of flaw on the LSAT basically trickles down into every argument, except for objective questions such as MSS, MBT, etc. I used to have a really hard time with flaw questions until I got myself a copy of the LSAT trainer by Mike Kim. If you haven't already gotten this book, I suggest you purchase it because it is a wise investment when it comes to really making you understand how to analyse flaws in arguments. After reading every argument, I always identify the conclusion and examine how it's not justified based on the set of premises used to support it. When tackling any argument, always ask yourself 1) what is the argument taking for granted, and 2) what is it failing to consider when drawing its conclusion from the set of premises.
As for most strongly supported questions, I always tend to see how the facts mesh together or what I can infer from a set of facts to draw out an answer choice. Never go for strong answer choices such as "all, most, certainly" etc, because they're usually wrong. Weaker answer choice for MSS are easier to justify and draw support for from the stimulus.