Flaw/Strengthen/Weaken Help

qwerty23

Hello everyone!
I've taken about 15 PT's now, and am still consistently missing flaw/strengthen/weaken problems—basically the questions that force me to think outside of the box. When I go over questions I got wrong, the correct answer always makes sense, yet when test-taking I struggle with coming up with those types of answers myself. Has anyone else had this problem? Do you have any recommendations for working on this type of thinking and practicing it? I've gone over the CC a couple of times now for these types of questions, but it never seems to stick...

Lucas Carter

Are you pre phrasing? By this I mean are you thinking about the assumptions/flaw before looking at the Answer Choices? Try looking at a few questions and writing down every single questionable assumption you can think of.

TheDeterminedC

I agree with @"Lucas Carter". It might seem counterintuitive to rip apart a strengthening question but it really helps. For now, I think you should focus on the 15 or so typical flaws made in arguments. You need to get solid fundamentals. Drill these flashcards to know what they are. After you've done this (maybe takes an hour), use this "mind bank" of flaws and apply it to each flaw/str/weak/na/sa question types. Once you understand what a type of flaw is, start drilling flaws. How does it appear in an lsat question? How would you be able to recognize it again if the wording was different? Can you give a similar example of a question with the same flaw? You will naturally become more critical of the argument while you read by drawing out each question. Holes in the argument will jump out to you. These five question stems merely dictate what you do with the gaps in the argument. So really they can slap whatever question stem on that stimulus and make ACs accordingly. Also, review these flashcards when you have free time after you get them down.

For another drill, you can try practicing writing out interchangeable answer choices for any of those 5 perviously stated question stems. If it's a str question, maybe write out what you think a flaw or necessary assumption answer would look like. Post them on the question comments or write to me if you would like and get some feedback on your reasoning.

One of the toughest parts of my studies was understanding how premise and conclusions are related. Specifically, how to use the premises given by the author to strengthen or weaken the conclusion. I'm not sure if this is an issue you are having but really try with each question to write out the argument, what is/are the premise(s), what is the conclusion, is it valid? ect.

These question stems should be an important focus in LR because they show up more frequently then all the others. Understanding flaws and premise/conclusion structure will help you on a hefty majority of LSAT questions as well.

qwerty23

@"Lucas Carter" @TheDeterminedC Thank you both! That's really helpful.