Self-paced
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
5 comments
Hello!
This is a slightly older post, but I am writing this anyway hoping it can still help!
On top of all the great advice from tutors, I would like to share mine.
I remember a flaw question that seemed like both a Necessary-Sufficient error and False Dichotomy. Both options were in the ACs so I had a hard time determining which one is correct. I ended up choosing a wrong one, but this experience gave me a great lesson: focus on the conclusion. Ask yourself, 'Is the conclusion actually committing that error?' Most of the time, the error can be found in the gap between the premise and the conclusion.
Speaking of conclusion, you must evaluate the strength of it. Did it make a radical but unnecessary claim? For example, the premise might say that X is causing problems, but jumping to the conclusion that 'We must entirely get rid of X' is too extreme. Maybe we could just fix X instead. In cases like this, when the stimulus does not seem to contain a classic common flaw, check to see if the conclusion is simply going beyond what is necessary.
On the flip side, watch out for ACs that go beyond the actual conclusion. For example, a stimulus might say something like, 'People accuse John of being dishonest, but those people must be solely motivated by jealousy.' An AC might say, 'The argument takes for granted that John is not dishonest without adequate justification.' But wait, did the stimulus ever claim that John is not dishonest? Nope. It merely points out accuser's motivation.
This got longer than I hoped, but I hope this helps! Good luck!
One thing that helped me with flaw questions was realizing that my job wasn't to find every single thing wrong with the argument. LSAT arguments often have a bunch of issues, but the test makers usually want you to pick the answer that describes the flaw that's most important to the reasoning.
One habit I recommend is to start by finding the conclusion, and then ask yourself, "Why does the author think these premises prove this conclusion?" Once you spot that connection, try to figure out what the author is assuming or taking for granted. Usually, the flaw is hiding right in that gap.
If you notice a few possible flaws, try lining them up with the conclusion and see which one matches the author's actual reasoning. Ask yourself which answer choice describes exactly how the author is thinking, instead of just pointing out something that's wrong. A lot of wrong answers mention a weakness, but don't actually get at the main flaw in the argument.
Another tip: try reviewing flaw questions by grouping them into common patterns. As you practice, you'll start to spot familiar flaws, like mixing up correlation and causation, ruling out other possibilities too fast, treating a necessary condition as if it's enough, or using a biased sample. The more of these patterns you recognize, the less each flaw question will feel like a brand new puzzle.
I hope this helps! Flaw questions can definitely be tricky since you have to both understand the argument and think about the reasoning in a more abstract way. But with enough practice and review, you'll start to see the patterns and these questions will get a lot easier. Let me know if you have any other questions!
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!