Flaw - Descriptive Flaws vs Actual Flaws in the Argument - How to determine??

RebekahM

I often make the mistake in flaw questions of -choosing an answer choice that's descriptively accurate and COULD describe a flaw, but doesn't describe THE flaw in the argument. For example: LSAT 86 - Section 1 - Question 19. I chose A. Any suggestions on how I can tackle this?? Pleeeease #help. Flaws are my biggest weakness and I'd love to improve.

gabes900-1

Hey Lattewatcher, I am drilling flaws right now as I have also had trouble with this. Recently, I will sometimes see a flaw in the argument in simply/lay terms or some trivial flaw characteristics of the argument they will present, but then I am unable to quickly read through the tough language of the ACs to get to the right answer. To combat this, I have been trying to hone in on the largest flaw or huge jumps from the premises to the conclusion after reading the argument and honing in on this one facet of the argument. Then, and only then, I will proceed to the ACs. Once I proceed to the ACs, I will remember this one "main flaw" of the argument and vigilantly look for it in the abstractly worded ACs. This has been my main strategy and have seen great results.

If I don't see the main flaw after reading the argument, I move on and come back later after I have looked at all the questions in the section. When this happens, sometimes I notice the main flaw of that argument right away once I come back.

In the instances where I just don't see the flaw and get the question wrong, as a result, I will type out an explanation immediately after attempting the section for these flaw questions. Flaws seem to show up pretty often across LR sections, so I tend to give them some priority over other types of LR questions during review/explanation sessions. This is also a result of them being a harder/higher level-of-understanding type of question in the LR section as well (JY touches up on this in the CC). I have seen great results from typing out explanations for the flaw questions I have trouble with. So, I highly recommend maybe trying this out. Typing explanations for flaw questions forces you to confront/understand the argument again, hone in on flaws, and examine why each AC is right or not right in a fallacious respect. I hope this helps. P.S. in my review/explanation sessions for flaw questions, I try to convert the LSAC writers tough-to-parse language of the ACs into common types of flaws. I also try to process their abstract writing of the flaws or flawed method of reasoning for a particular LR flaw question's argument and compare it to the way I see the argument as flawed. This may take some time, so it does require some patience. But I have noticed this practice to be worthwhile for performance on flaw questions and any other LR question type for that matter.

I hope this helps. Happy studying!