Hey everyone, I'm scoring around low 160s and having a lot of trouble with Flaw/Descriptive Weakening questions. Even after reviewing the core lessons, I'm having trouble identifying an approach beyond this test: "1) descriptively accurate 2) describing the flaw." I feel like this approach is vague, and it rarely singles out an answer for me. Anyone have some tricks they can share for approaching those 4/5 star Flaw questions? Thanks.
I'm encountering a weird problem where I'm missing way more 3 stars than 4/5 stars on LR. I guess this is a good problem to have since it's probably a mental thing; has anyone come across the same issue? Any fixes?
My RC score is holding me back and I have a lot of issues with timing. I'm missing questions on every passage, with more towards the later ones. What's a good way to drill RC besides doing whole sections?
Maybe not a complete fix but you can hide your previous answer choice with the eye icon in the top menu. Although you'll probably still remember what you originally answered, it can help you see the problem with fresh eyes.
Strawman reference #iykyk
@ said:
The biggest help for me with 4/5 star questions in general is to flip mindsets when I've narrowed down to 2 or 3 ACs, from the initial "explain why the single correct AC is correct" to "explain why the other ACs are incorrect." I personally go into Flaw questions trying to think what jumps out at me as the argument's predominant flaw at a fairly general level then look through the ACs for something that matches, so trying to disprove ACs that hinge on more specific points that I didn't think of when making my initial guess helps me be more confident in my choice.
Ok got it, that sounds like a better approach. One question here: what do you do if the correct answer choice is something that didn't jump out at you intitially? Sometimes, one of the AC's will have a flaw that is really tough to identify from just reading the stim but ends up being right -- how do you make sure you're not accidentally eliminating that one?