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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
12
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
46 comments
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.