How to do flaw q when you can't see the flaw/prephase

beezmoof

I know JY advises against moving onto the ACs without coming up with a prephase for flaw questions, but there are unfortunately usually 2-3 flaw questions on PTs that I just can't seem to see the flaw, even after skipping and coming back to it. And as some of you can guess, I get trapped by attractive sounding answers because I'm wading in muddy waters. How have you all overcome this? Do you have a methodical way of approaching flaw questions? (I try to boil down the MP and the MC and see the gap each time.)

Is drilling flaw questions the best way to fundamentally fix this problem? I'm thinking maybe I just haven't been exposed to enough flaw qs to see the patterns.

Thanks

Leah M B

My only other tip for flaw questions is that sometimes when I am stumped, especially if you can narrow it down to 2-3 options, I'll analyze the answers by seeing if they solve anything in the stimulus. The answer choices are giving you potential problems in the stimulus. So think through if that was something that was fixed/changed, how would it affect the scenario in the stimulus. If it has no effect, that's not the correct answer. If changing that aspect of the stimulus results in something different, something more cohesive, then it's right.

It's tough to describe, basically just working it backwards. That's not far off from the original problem though. My general advice is yes, you should be drilling flaw questions. Those in particular for me, doing them over and over again you start to see the patterns. They're very repetitive in their logic. You start to be able to pre-phrase the answer just because the set up is exactly like a ton of other questions.

Hope that helps!

BinghamtonDave

@beezmoof there is a ton to say on this topic but I will keep this post brief. Belo are a few suggestions.

0.Skip: if you don't have that great of a handle on the argument: skip and come back. There is money to be made on the other questions. Also, give yourself a bit of latitude, if you can't anticipate a precise answer choice: let the answer choices feed you.

1.Ideally, you don't want to be in this spot,I recommend looking at 5 flaw questions from LSAT history daily. Set a 30 minute timer, pick them apart, work the answer choices from wrong to right. The older tests (PT 1-PT 20) are really good for mining old flaw questions. How many different ways can you spot a sufficient/necessary flaw? How many ways can you describe it? Can you describe the flaw by not using the words "sufficient" and "necessary"? What exactly does the description of the sufficient/necessary flaw on PT A section 4 question 20 mean? Suggestion #1 is to put in the time drilling flaws: know them.

2.If you have no idea whatsoever what the flaw is: eliminate the answer choices that you know from your practice are not describing the flaw. In other words if you can't anticipate the flaw, you should still be able to tell that it is not an ad hominem attack or the definition of a word did not shift throughout the course of the argument. You might be able to eliminate two answer choices by doing this.

3.Focus on the specific words in the conclusion. How strong is the conclusion? Is a really strong word like "never" used? If so, this is your first place to start when you are at this step: Locate the strong word and then look back at the premise provided for support of that conclusion, quite often there is a gap between the voracity of the conclusion and the evidence used in support of that conclusion. Eliminate answer choices and choose from the remaining.

4.Drill that question after and eliminate that weakness.

5.Take a look at old strengthen/weakening/necessary assumption/parallel the flaw questions and turn them into flaw questions.

I hope these tips help
David

beezmoof

@"Leah M B" I just implemented your working it backwards technique on my BR! Helped me pin down a q via POE. And I'm about to do daily drilling. Thanks for your help

beezmoof

@BinghamtonDave I'm about to print out PT 1-35's flaw and do the 5 questions a day from here on out. Same with NA. I'm inspired now.

Also examining the voracity of the conclusion is really helpful. I just missed a flaw question bc the conclusion made a straw man flaw/too severe flaw where it misinterpreted someone else's claim. Very helpful thank you

Trust But Verify

The LSAT Trainer helped me with flaws tremendously.

Namaste

Sami

Both @"Leah M B" and @BinghamtonDave nailed it.

There are always going to be scenarios no matter how advanced in your prep you get where you will read something and not understand what the problem is with the stimulus. You want to circle and move on under time constraint. Try reading it again on the second round. If you still do not understand it, see if you can read the answer choices and just consider each of them and see if this could be the flaw mentioned in the stimulus.

On blind review, you want to break the question apart, draw parallel argument and see if you can find similar questions in other sections. The flaw you see in this question is likely to repeat in a strengthening/weakening questions and often understanding that type of argument could be really helpful rather than just focusing on question type.