It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
So, working through the CC I've found that flaw questions seem to be quite difficult for me compared to other question types. I think that this could be due to me simply not having seen enough of these questions (I've worked through about 15 so far) to get used to the language that the LSAC hides the flaw in. So far I have been able to pinpoint the flaw in most of the stimuli but the AC trip me up because of how they are worded.
Did you guys get better at flaws just by seeing and doing more of them? I feel like exposure to hundreds of these may jsut be the best way to see all the patterns and traps. Or were there any specific ways that you guys approached these questions?
Comments
In my experience, exposure to untimed drilling from PTs 1-35 have helped. By doing this, I was able to recognize the different ways they present the flaws through language and form, which lends itself to greater understanding and competency. Now, I am doing LR timed sections and more untimed flaw drilling between PTs and I've seen increases in speed, accuracy and understanding.
Another thing I would recommend is writing out flawed inferences and flawed methods of reasoning in other LR questions during BR. For example, a weakening question argument may present a survey of high school students in a county or city in the premises, then make a hasty generalization about the same characteristic of high school students on the national level. By marking this down in your BR for other arguments in other types of questions, this can make the process of recognizing flaws easier over time.
Another recommendation, watch the "Flaw Intensive" webinar under the Resources tab. Jimmy does a great job of capturing the common flaws on the LSAT and uses examples as well.
Thank you for all the advice
No problem, I'm glad I could help. And happy studying! I find flaw questions one of the more enjoyable LR question types to drill.