Abstract language.

Killmonger

I have an issue with the harder flaw reasoning questions. 99 times out of 100 i can point out the flaw. Hell i can make a stand up comedy routine about how stupid you are for coming up with your conclusion with the flawed reasoning in the stimulus. my issue is pinning down the abstract language that exists in the answer choices. I get them wrong like half the time. I am the Tom cat and the LSAT makers are Jerry mouse in this scenario. Im getting got way too often. 50 percent of the hard flaw questions i get wrong. And when i watch the explanations, my flaws are right, i just can't pin down the abstract language down. (random example. PT 41 section 3 question 20)

Has anyone else struggled with this and how did you really get better at this? I of course do BR and mark down the questions and refer back to them. I just feel like theres an infinite amount of ways for them to be so convoluted and vague and subtle with the right answer. I have a positive attitude when i come up short on other questions but its hard to not get frustrated when i miss those questions specifically. Its like I'm getting beat by the same move and it huuuuurrtttss.

I know i have to keep practicing. Im not taking the LSAT until September and i hover around the low to mid 160's on my PT's. sort of just wanted to vent on the forum, sort of want to see if this is a problem anyone else has and if theres hope and what they did to master this.

BinghamtonDave

I understand your frustration. Before going into some strategies that have helped me with flaws, one thing I want to point out is that flaws are in the abstract, patterns of reasoning that repeat. The example you provided (41-3-20) is straight from the core curriculum, namely invalid argument form #7. Seeing this question for what it is, allows us to confidently eliminate answer choices (C), (D) and (E) because these answer choices are not getting to the heart of what is wrong with the reasoning in this problem.
https://7sage.com/lesson/invalid-argument-form-7-of-7/

Here are some tips that I have used to help with flaw questions:
As part of the blind review process, I always take a minute to write out what the error that (C) is describing would actually look like. In other words, what is the equivocation of a term? What would the thing that (D) is describing look like? I do this during BR because I want to build a familiarity with these descriptions of flaws. I also do this because even on tremendously difficult flaw questions because there is always going to be an answer choice that is talking about a flaw that we should know is not there.

We can eliminate these answer choices and then strategically look at the ones we have left to see if they pass our 2 step test for flaw answer choices: 1.the answer choice must be factually accurate and 2. the answer choice must describe why the argument is weak. Familiarity with flaw questions through the blind review process also yields another benefit in this regard: we often come across answer choices that pass step 1 of our 2 step test for flaw answer choices: namely, they are actually true, but they fail step 2. This most readily appears in my experience when an answer choice says that the argument "fails to consider" something. Arguments are 4-6 lines long, by definition they are going to "fail to consider" a whole host of things.

So for the argument you referenced, an abstract way we could come up with a description of the flaw would be to say: this argument assumes that there is an overlap between two some statements coming from a single variable. In other words:
A<--s-->B

A<---s--->C

C<---s----->B
How they chose to describe this is as follows: The argument fails to recognize that although some hot days are also unsafe smog days and some hot days are also eastern wind days, the eastern wind days might not occur at all when there is unsafe smog days. This says that the argument fails to recognize that although some As are Bs and some As are Cs but there might not be any Bs that are Cs.

As far as actually pinning the abstract language down, the key I have found is to whittle down the answer choices to get to something within the ballpark of what it is we are looking for. This assumes a fair degree of comfort with what the flaw actually is. The second thing I have found is that pragmatically speaking, some answer choices are going to be really, really abstract, and I am sometimes slightly uncomfortable in choosing them within 84 seconds, but they are the best of the lot. The third thing is to blind review precisely what it is that the AC has done when you have a chance. It might be helpful to build a notebook of problems with highly abstract answer choices and review them daily. It might also be helpful to see that even though an answer choice is highly abstract, it should be describing something that we are familiar with.

I hope this help
David

Killmonger

This was sooooo helpful. Thanks a lot david