Hello All,
I finished 7Sage's curriculum and now working on The Trainer. I see how they complement each other. I have an essential question and very appreciate your input. I am having difficulties finding the flaw after isolating the argument.
After you isolate the argument, do you sit and critically think of a scenario on when this premise doesn't support this conclusion? J.Y. does it all the time and so as Mike Kim, but I fail to do so. Most of the times I rely on the answer choices to lead me on the line of thoughts.
Using my small brain to come up with a dumb example:
"Louis is carrying a cup of water; hence, he is thirsty."
How would you go about the thought process?
The way I try to approach questions:
1- I think: carrying a cup of water doesn't mean he is thirsty (I just try to fail the argument).
2- Why the hell is he carrying a cup of water then? Ummmm, in my case I stop at this stage most of the time. Do you guys think: Oh he probably wants to water the plants. (I don't usually come up with a scenario and even when I come it is in many cases wrong.
I bought Cambridge LR recently and started with Flaw questions. I am doing them untimed and trying to stay on each question many minutes to dissect it inside out, but I think this is wrong too. I am not supposed to pay a lot of attention to the context info but concentrate of the argument only.
I very appreciate your help
