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.
@AlastairYeates Overlooked possibilities is frequently phrased in the question stem as "fails to consider that..." (what does the argument ignore that is problematic: step 2). Presumptions are frequently phrases as "takes for granted that..." (what does the argument assume between the premises and conclusion: step 1).
what is an example of an answer choice that accurately describes the flaw but is incorrect because it isn't descriptively accurate? using the mr. fat cat example
there’s no need to ask, “Did the argument actually fail to consider this possibility?” Instead, just ask, “Would this possibility, if true, weaken the argument?”
would it be smart to go through all the "Argument Flaw Chart" link and get myself used to the types of flaws or would it be better to look at it after? Anyones thoughts?
#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.
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.
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...
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.
Wow, thinking of flaw questions as descriptive weakening questions really helps! This is a question type I really struggled with on my diagnostic and now I’m understanding
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.
52 comments
I'm going to miss Mr. Fat Cat when I finally take the LSAT
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.
I am honestly super tired on my lunch break now watching/reading this and I hope this will all pay off one beautiful day.
whats the differnece between overlooked possiblilities and takes for granted (or Presumes)
@AlastairYeates Overlooked possibilities is frequently phrased in the question stem as "fails to consider that..." (what does the argument ignore that is problematic: step 2). Presumptions are frequently phrases as "takes for granted that..." (what does the argument assume between the premises and conclusion: step 1).
Bro how many times are u gonna punch this argument in the face?
All I wanted was fries. Not logic.
what is an example of an answer choice that accurately describes the flaw but is incorrect because it isn't descriptively accurate? using the mr. fat cat example
there’s no need to ask, “Did the argument actually fail to consider this possibility?” Instead, just ask, “Would this possibility, if true, weaken the argument?”
Didn't show an example for Step 2! Would have been helpful!
would it be smart to go through all the "Argument Flaw Chart" link and get myself used to the types of flaws or would it be better to look at it after? Anyones thoughts?
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.
Alright, let's go, los geht's! We got this!
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.
And for the second point "describing the flaw" the flaw should focus on the conclusion? #help
Great lesson.
for each answer choice ask yourself if it is a) descriptively accurate and b) if it is describing the flaw
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...
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
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!
Right Answer→ descriptively accurate and describes the flaw
/descriptively accurate or /describe the flaw→/Right Answer
Wow, thinking of flaw questions as descriptive weakening questions really helps! This is a question type I really struggled with on my diagnostic and now I’m understanding
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!