The first step has to do with noticing what the usual verbs are for answer choices in flaw questions. For example,
-The argument takes for granted…
-The argument confuses…
-The argument assumes…
-The argument mistakenly believes that…
-The argument inaccurately describes…
-The argument overlooks the possibility…
The way we apply the test is after we read the stimulus, we ask ourselves does the argument assume something? No? Okay, then immediately knock out the answer choice claiming that the argument assumes. Next, does the argument confuse something like did they confuse a necessary condition for a sufficient one? No? Okay then eliminate the answer choice that says they confused something. Last one. Was everything they described accurate given the evidence? Yes? Okay then eliminate the answer choice that says they inaccurately described.
But okay, that leads us to our next step.
After elimination, we might be left with a couple flaws that are actually present in the argument. But, the only one is relevant to the premises and conclusion. For the hard wrong answer choices, it will describe a flaw in the argument but it has no bearing on how the premises support the conclusion.
Something that just clicked for me is that, before one can do the two step test, one must must must ID the argument (P&C) and base the two step process only on the argument. Not on the context.
I did a few questions without first 100% identifying the argument and separating out the context, and it came back to bite me in the ass. Some answer choices definitely exploit this.
This point might be obvious, but still thought it was worth calling out.
I know I'm not the person you're replying to, but just some advice I'd give is to definitely focus on blind reviewing and drilling weak areas that you can find under 'analytics' because that can help tremendously.
PT 27 S1 Q2 is a great example of the two step method: (Do not scroll further until reviewing the question otherwise you'll spoil the correct AC for yourself)
Premise: Only 20 percent of the population knows about DNA to understand a news story about DNA
Conclusion: At least 80 percent of the population does not know enough about medical concepts to make well in-formed personal medical choices or to make good public policy decisions about health care.
Flaw: Takes for granted that knowing about DNA is necessary to knowing about medical concepts to make well in-formed personal medical choices or to make good public policy decisions about health care.
(A) Descriptively accurate, but this is not the flaw.
(B) Descriptively accurate, but this is not the flaw.
(C) Descriptively accurate, but this is not the flaw.
(D) Descriptively accurate, and is the flaw
(E) Descriptively accurate, but this is not the flaw.
I've seen tiktoks where people take the lsat for fun and score a 168 like it's no big deal. Meanwhile I'm doing this lol. I hope that going more into this curriculum pays off in the long run; I just want to be happy and successful.
So basically for the hard questions they could be describing something that does happen in the argument (like an assumption) BUT that AC is wrong if it doesn't spefically describe the flaw...
Make sure that the answer choice is describing the argument precisely AND that it is pointing out the flaw in the argument. Trap wrong answers will often do one but not the other.
Since it was 10 months ago, I'm sure you have already figured this beast out. But, for those that struggle with Flaws even after going through these lessons, the Trainer by Mike Kim works wonderfully for flaws. Best of luck.
I'm not even really struggling with these, and the fact that I already toasted so much money a mountain of PowerScore books makes me ready to sob at the fact that I just put this trainer book in my Amazon cart. But I keep hearing good things about it. So, what's one more book? Thanks.
I've got the Trainer open in front of me as I watch this video and am comparing the strategies and advice. I think 7Sage and the trainer complement each other and should be used in tandem.
1. Does the answer choice accurately describe the argument?
and
2. Is the answer choice describing the flaw within the argument?
ie
1. Descriptively accurate?
2. Describe the flaw?
The correct answer choice is the one that allows you to answer yes to both of these questions.
also "not every single assumption makes the argument flawed;" many trap answer choices will accurately describe the argument but will not address the flaw; they will pass the first part of the test but not the second.
#feedback This has got to be one of my favorite lessons of all the ones so far. The level of detail, the examples, the tactics, the situations that prompt the tactics. I feel like this gave me a framework through which to view the questions we're taking on through this lesson.
#feedback why isn't the video above the written text like usual? I didn't know there was a video option but as someone who learns better with the video, that should be first as it usually is. Having it last made it seem like there wouldn't be one.
The 2nd test seems a bit vague to me. Is there any way to be more specific about what does or does not constitute the flaw so that we can identify whether an answer choice passes? In other words, is there a bright-line for "flaw"? or perhaps some flags or techniques we can use to id things that are more or less likely to be flaws?
52 comments
The first step has to do with noticing what the usual verbs are for answer choices in flaw questions. For example,
-The argument takes for granted…
-The argument confuses…
-The argument assumes…
-The argument mistakenly believes that…
-The argument inaccurately describes…
-The argument overlooks the possibility…
The way we apply the test is after we read the stimulus, we ask ourselves does the argument assume something? No? Okay, then immediately knock out the answer choice claiming that the argument assumes. Next, does the argument confuse something like did they confuse a necessary condition for a sufficient one? No? Okay then eliminate the answer choice that says they confused something. Last one. Was everything they described accurate given the evidence? Yes? Okay then eliminate the answer choice that says they inaccurately described.
But okay, that leads us to our next step.
After elimination, we might be left with a couple flaws that are actually present in the argument. But, the only one is relevant to the premises and conclusion. For the hard wrong answer choices, it will describe a flaw in the argument but it has no bearing on how the premises support the conclusion.
Thank you for this!
Something that just clicked for me is that, before one can do the two step test, one must must must ID the argument (P&C) and base the two step process only on the argument. Not on the context.
I did a few questions without first 100% identifying the argument and separating out the context, and it came back to bite me in the ass. Some answer choices definitely exploit this.
This point might be obvious, but still thought it was worth calling out.
Thank you!!
lol test is saturday and i just said fuck it and have been bouncing around to my week points
How was it?
Dude what an incredible jump. I hope you're proud of how much progress you made between tests
158 from a 144.
what did you do to really see that much of an increase? drill a lot and blind review?
I know I'm not the person you're replying to, but just some advice I'd give is to definitely focus on blind reviewing and drilling weak areas that you can find under 'analytics' because that can help tremendously.
I am honestly super tired on my lunch break now watching/reading this and I hope this will all pay off one beautiful day.
Right Answer→ descriptively accurate and describes the flaw
/descriptively accurate or /describe the flaw→/Right Answer
Two Steps:
1) Is it descriptively accurate?
- ACs usually start with verbs to describe what the argument is doing.
2) Describe the flaw
- Is that what is actualy flawed about the argument.
Be careful, because some answer choices can describe what is happening, but Two Steps:
1) Is it descriptively accurate?
- ACs usually start with verbs to describe what the argument is doing.
2) Describe the flaw
- Is that what is actualy flawed about the argument.
Be careful, because some answer choices can describe what is happening, but mischaracterize the flaw, and vice versa. the flaw, and vice versa.
cats like to drink milk is always overlooked : (
PT 27 S1 Q2 is a great example of the two step method: (Do not scroll further until reviewing the question otherwise you'll spoil the correct AC for yourself)
Premise: Only 20 percent of the population knows about DNA to understand a news story about DNA
Conclusion: At least 80 percent of the population does not know enough about medical concepts to make well in-formed personal medical choices or to make good public policy decisions about health care.
Flaw: Takes for granted that knowing about DNA is necessary to knowing about medical concepts to make well in-formed personal medical choices or to make good public policy decisions about health care.
(A) Descriptively accurate, but this is not the flaw.
(B) Descriptively accurate, but this is not the flaw.
(C) Descriptively accurate, but this is not the flaw.
(D) Descriptively accurate, and is the flaw
(E) Descriptively accurate, but this is not the flaw.
Thanks for the example. Wow, this seems like a tough flaw questions for a #2 question!
I've seen tiktoks where people take the lsat for fun and score a 168 like it's no big deal. Meanwhile I'm doing this lol. I hope that going more into this curriculum pays off in the long run; I just want to be happy and successful.
Alright, let's go, los geht's! We got this!
So basically for the hard questions they could be describing something that does happen in the argument (like an assumption) BUT that AC is wrong if it doesn't spefically describe the flaw...
All I wanted was fries. Not logic.
Make sure that the answer choice is describing the argument precisely AND that it is pointing out the flaw in the argument. Trap wrong answers will often do one but not the other.
This is my weakest question type. I'm very confused about testing descriptively.
You'll get it! Persistence!
Since it was 10 months ago, I'm sure you have already figured this beast out. But, for those that struggle with Flaws even after going through these lessons, the Trainer by Mike Kim works wonderfully for flaws. Best of luck.
I'm not even really struggling with these, and the fact that I already toasted so much money a mountain of PowerScore books makes me ready to sob at the fact that I just put this trainer book in my Amazon cart. But I keep hearing good things about it. So, what's one more book? Thanks.
I've got the Trainer open in front of me as I watch this video and am comparing the strategies and advice. I think 7Sage and the trainer complement each other and should be used in tandem.
Bro how many times are u gonna punch this argument in the face?
for each answer choice ask yourself if it is a) descriptively accurate and b) if it is describing the flaw
The cats like to drink milk reference comes up A LOT in this course.
lol yes similar to the jedi and force users example, even though ive never seen star wars haha
Test for answer choices for flaw questions:
1. Does the answer choice accurately describe the argument?
and
2. Is the answer choice describing the flaw within the argument?
ie
1. Descriptively accurate?
2. Describe the flaw?
The correct answer choice is the one that allows you to answer yes to both of these questions.
also "not every single assumption makes the argument flawed;" many trap answer choices will accurately describe the argument but will not address the flaw; they will pass the first part of the test but not the second.
This is how I interpreted the 2-step process...
How to solve a flaw question
Step 1: Is the ac found in the text?
Step 2: Is it a flaw?
Really helpful lol
#feedback This has got to be one of my favorite lessons of all the ones so far. The level of detail, the examples, the tactics, the situations that prompt the tactics. I feel like this gave me a framework through which to view the questions we're taking on through this lesson.
#feedback why isn't the video above the written text like usual? I didn't know there was a video option but as someone who learns better with the video, that should be first as it usually is. Having it last made it seem like there wouldn't be one.
Two Step Test for difficult Flaw Qs - ask both of the following for attractive answers:
1. is the answer descriptively accurate of the stimulus? (e.g. the argument inappropriately assumes that...)
Has to pass this first because it has to get the stimulus right, in order to describe the flaw.
2. is it describing the flaw?
The argument can be overlooking or assuming a lot of things, but those aren't necessary what makes the argument flawed.
Both have to be met for the answer to be correct. Most trap answers are (1) descriptively accurate but (2) DO NOT describe the right flaw.
The 2nd test seems a bit vague to me. Is there any way to be more specific about what does or does not constitute the flaw so that we can identify whether an answer choice passes? In other words, is there a bright-line for "flaw"? or perhaps some flags or techniques we can use to id things that are more or less likely to be flaws?
It is vague.
There are "flaws" that LSAT writers employ repeatedly. So consider those your "bright-lines". https://7sage.com/lesson/21-common-argument-flaws/
There are also other "flaws" that are kind of one off. Keep thinking about this question.
If you have some insights, email me. I'd love to hear them.
admin. note: "19 Common Argument Flaws" has been changed to "21 Common Argument Flaws" and the URL has been adjusted accordingly.
I'm going to miss Mr. Fat Cat when I finally take the LSAT
Didn't show an example for Step 2! Would have been helpful!