Self-study
New to studying LSAT. Noticed that some LR problems involve stimuli that are deliberately flawed/weak/invalid and their question stems mostly (not always) refer to those issues. I understand this.
However, should RC passages be assumed not to contain such deliberate flaws? If there are criticisms of a second perspective by the author, that is given. However, we should not be keeping a skeptical view of the author's view/reasoning as if we are keeping an eye out for a flaw in his/her reasoning that we might be questioned on?
2
3 comments
I can't remember seeing RC sections with intentional flaws. There will be questions where you have to strengthen/ weaken/ evaluate like Michael pointed out, but the passages themselves do not include intentional flaws for you to find. You can (and should) take everything the author says at face value to better understand the structure and purpose of the passage.
Read RC sections semi-critically (sorry for the vagaries; it's not a simple test). Passages feature plenty of arguments, and often you're asked to Weaken/Strengthen/Evaluate those arguments (here's an example).
Often this comes in the context of a phenomenon-hypothesis passage, where you're asked to provide or eliminate alternative explanations for the phenomenon in question.
Usually these aren't deliberate flaws, as you describe. More like places where more evidence would be relevant, and it could go either way. Still though, there's plenty of value in recognizing common argument forms, especially those that are often flawed (like analogies or weighing factors or eliminating options or causal reasoning). If you see an analogy, for example, you can often expect a question asking you to critically evaluate that analogy.
"should RC passages be assumed not to contain such deliberate flaws?"
Yes. Assume there are no flaws deliberately embedded within the passage. Do not keep an eye out for a flaw in the reasoning. I can't remember ever seeing a flawed reasoning/vulnerable to criticism question on the RC side.