7Sage

Choosing the correct tiebreaker

Hbliv · 2026-05-29T13:36:26Z

Hi! I find that the process of elimination helps me a lot to narrow down answer choices when I am struggling with a question. However, I have been drilling flaw questions and can't seem to figure out how to decide between the last two answers I have narrowed it down to. To me, the differences between the answer choices are both so minute, and somehow I always end up choosing the wrong one. I just know I am SOOO close to getting the right answer and would love some help to get there. Please let me know if you guys have any good strategies for breaking the ties and approaching flaw questions!!!!

I think the key is that “tiebreaker” analysis actually has to happen on a few different levels.

At the top-down level, I would slightly reframe the goal. When you’re down to two answer choices, I wouldn’t make the primary question, “Which one is better?” One of them is wrong, so they’re not both good answers. The better question is usually: What is the significant flaw in the wrong answer that I missed the first time?

That shift matters because it keeps you from endlessly comparing two answers that both sound tempting. Instead, you’re actively looking for the defect. Examples of the defects that exist at this level include relevancy and scope. These defects are more universal in nature, not specific to anyone question type, but are still very effective for identifying flaws in an answer choice.

Then, at the question-type level, there are specific flaws that vary depending on the type of question. For flaw questions, that often means checking for the common ways wrong answers misdescribe the reasoning.

For example:

Does one answer choice describe conditional reasoning when the argument is really using necessary/sufficient reasoning differently?
Does one answer choice turn correlation into causation, or causation into correlation?
Does one answer choice confuse raw numbers with percentages or proportions?
Does one answer choice describe a flaw that is real in general, but not actually the flaw in this argument?

And then underneath that, there’s the deeper skill level: you have to really understand the micro-structures of conditional reasoning, causal reasoning, quantitative reasoning, etc., so that those checks are not just vocabulary words but actual procedures you can apply.

So my basic approach would be:

Don’t ask which answer is “better.” Ask which answer is significantly flawed.
Use the specific flaw patterns for that question type to find the defect.
Then confirm that the remaining answer actually describes what happened in the argument.

And believe it or not, even the difference seems "minute" once you are aware of it, finding it on your own could happen at any of the three levels.

I hope this helps, let me know if you have any follow up q's!

1 comments

SCOTT_LEBO Independent Tutor
3 days ago
I think the key is that “tiebreaker” analysis actually has to happen on a few different levels.
At the top-down level, I would slightly reframe the goal. When you’re down to two answer choices, I wouldn’t make the primary question, “Which one is better?” One of them is wrong, so they’re not both good answers. The better question is usually: What is the significant flaw in the wrong answer that I missed the first time?
That shift matters because it keeps you from endlessly comparing two answers that both sound tempting. Instead, you’re actively looking for the defect. Examples of the defects that exist at this level include relevancy and scope. These defects are more universal in nature, not specific to anyone question type, but are still very effective for identifying flaws in an answer choice.
Then, at the question-type level, there are specific flaws that vary depending on the type of question. For flaw questions, that often means checking for the common ways wrong answers misdescribe the reasoning.
For example:
Does one answer choice describe conditional reasoning when the argument is really using necessary/sufficient reasoning differently?
Does one answer choice turn correlation into causation, or causation into correlation?
Does one answer choice confuse raw numbers with percentages or proportions?
Does one answer choice describe a flaw that is real in general, but not actually the flaw in this argument?
And then underneath that, there’s the deeper skill level: you have to really understand the micro-structures of conditional reasoning, causal reasoning, quantitative reasoning, etc., so that those checks are not just vocabulary words but actual procedures you can apply.
So my basic approach would be:
Don’t ask which answer is “better.” Ask which answer is significantly flawed.
Use the specific flaw patterns for that question type to find the defect.
Then confirm that the remaining answer actually describes what happened in the argument.
And believe it or not, even the difference seems "minute" once you are aware of it, finding it on your own could happen at any of the three levels.
I hope this helps, let me know if you have any follow up q's!
3

You've reached the end of the comments.

Discussions

Choosing the correct tiebreaker

Confirm action