Self-study
I am so bad at these. I am good at LR except for flaw and one other question type. I just can't figure it out. Sometimes I'll find a gap but it isn't the right one. Other times the answer choices are too subtle or I find multiple ones correct. Sometimes I don't see how the answer is really a flaw. I need a way to reframe these/think about them correctly.
2
3 comments
Not all flaws are about finding a gap. You won't find this is any LSAT prep books, but there are actually only three different kinds of flaws: flaws of relevance, flaws of ambiguity, and flaws of presumption.
Here is a quick breakdown on these different types.
Relevance: the premises are not really relevant to establishing that the conclusion is likely to be true (examples: personal attack, appeals to emotion, popularity, unqualified authority)
Ambiguity: some word or phrase is being used ambiguously in the argument so that it means one thing in one place but means something else in another place (examples: whole/part ambiguity, relative/absolute ambiguity)
Presumption (these are the most common by far on the LSAT): the argument presumes that something is true that is highly questionable (examples: false dichotomy--presumes that there are only two options when there are probably many options, hasty generalization--presumes that a sample is representative of a population when it probably isn't, correlation-causation--presumes that a correlation is sufficient on its own to establish causation when this is doubtful)
"Find the gap" works okay for flaws of presumption (which are the most common on the LSAT), but it works terribly on the other two types. For flaw questions, I would suggest first asking "Are these premises relevant to establishing that the conclusion is likely to be true?" If the argument passes this test, then ask "are there any suspicious words or phrases that might be being used ambiguously?" If it passes this test, then you can ask about a "gap."
I hope this helps.
@Dr.LarsEnden Interesting take! Thank you
I’m no expert, but I try to approach these questions as if an opposing counsel is making them. I’m trying to pick everything apart why the conclusion doesn’t make sense. I try to predict before going to the answer choices. I hope this helps!