Flawed Reasoning Questions: ambiguous or misinterpretation of key term

Bamboosprout

I see this answer choice often (The argument ambiguously uses x, or argument relies on interpreting a key term differently), and JY always says this answer choice is often used as the correct answer. But I feel like I have never noticed it, and don't really have a good understanding of how to spot a stimulus that does this. Do any of you guys have any tips or resources on how to tackle this kind of flaw question? Especially with the harder ones, there are so many possible flaws that my pre-phrased answer just doesn't help.

lkhastings

In short: If an argument hinges on a key word, alarms should go off and you should be extremely sensitive to how it is used or developed. In each question during BR, I circle the subjects/actors, key transition words (but, yet, however, thus, etc) and words generally essential to the argument (a certain quality, theory, action). The goal eventually being to notice and mentally emphasize these key words on fresh questions. This has helped me find small changes and assumptions such as a misinterpreting or altering the meaning of key terms.

Easier question:
Ex. PT 77 S4 Q6
"Your newspapers advertisement claims that you provide coverage of the highschools most popular sports. Clearly this is false advertising. [15% of the school runs track, 5% play basketball, but you have stories only on basketball]"

The argument clearly rests on interpreting "popular" and answer C) "misinterprets a key word in the newspaper's advertisement" immediately sticks out.

Harder questions will change the interpretation of the word more subtly or distract you with more complex arguments that waste time parsing.

One that tripped me up at first was PT 59 S2 15
"A few theorists hold the extreme view that society could flourish in a condition of anarchy, the absence of government...But these theorists views ignore the fundamental principle of social philosophy -- that an acceptable social philosophy must promote peace and order. Any social philosophy that countenances chaos, ie. anarchy, accordingly deserves no further detention.

I prephrased an answer around the fact that just because a theory isn't acceptable/doesn't uphold a common principle of social philosophy doesn't mean it deserves no further attention. In reality the scope of what anarchy means is broadened considerably (A. a key term shifts illicitly) and I had accepted this assumption.

Bamboosprout

Thanks for sharing those two examples. The anarchy one was hard. I had no idea without your bolded explanations. I still have no idea how to approach them except to eliminate all other answers. I just can't focus on the definition of words while reading so quickly, and like you said, especially with the harder ones, there are so many possible flaws that my pre-phrased answer just doesn't help. =(