Flaw Questions

davidlopez186

This is the one question type I can't seem to be able to master after months of studying. I think my biggest problem is not having the right prephrase but overall just have a really hard time identifying subtle flaws. Does anyone have any suggestions that can help me improve identifying the flaw and also strategically eliminating answers?

danielbrowning208

Memorize and drill the common flaws so that you can soundly eliminate them on the harder questions where they often show up as incorrect answer choices. Try not prephrasing the hard flaw questions and see if that helps. I find prephrasing very helpful for easy flaws but often restrictive on the harder ones, where my prephrase might not match what the test writers had in mind. In fact, the test writers can sometimes anticipate prephrases and lay clever traps based on that. For that reason, I have shied away from using prephrases on flaw questions as often.

davidlopez186

@danielbrowning208 This is great advice. Thank you!

FindingSage

The flaw questions we see on the LSAT can be divided into two major categories: classic flaws ( sufficiency/ necessity confusion, circular reasoning ect) and also arguments which are flawed because the evidence/ reasoning doesn’t support the conclusion. For classic flaws, I made Flashcards. I made some Flashcards with the term on one side and the definition on the other. I made other Flashcards with my own examples of the common flaws. I also looked up examples of LSAT questions from older tests and made some actual LSAT questions into Flashcards. I made sure to put both the LSAT way of expressing the answer choice on the back as well as my own definition. LSAT loves to express answer choices from flaw questions very abstractly so it is important to have a strong understanding of what the flaw is and then also learn to see what this would look like in an answer choice.

I also mentioned the second category of flaw questions which are questions where the support and evidence given don’t support the conclusion. For these questions I try to find a loophole which should call out where the argument is weak. And then try to find this loophole in the answer choices.

I find the POE is the worst idea for flaw questions. If I can’t either articulate the flaw itself or find a loophole to name where the argument is weak, I am better skipping and coming back. When I come back I will try to get a better command of the stimulus and at that point should have an easier time picking the correct answer.

knitterstitcher

I made huge improvement on these by doing the basics---rewatched JY's curriculum on the topic and type up a list of the "common argument flaws"---he lists about twenty or so. Reviewed that frequently. Then I printed out a bunch of flaw questions (from "problem sets" under "resources") and went through them slowly, highlighting for each the conclusion and prem, and took my time trying to articulate the flaw(s). (No peeking at the answers!) Then I went over the list of common flaws to see if I'd missed any possible issues. Then I'd hit the answer choices, asking for each one 1) is this descriptively accurate, and 2) does this support the conclusion. Made myself work out why/why not and say it out loud. I practiced that every day for about a week and have not had trouble with these since. Sounds simple, and it is. Just break them down (go slow) and it will soon become automatic (to go fast). Best wishes!

Chris Nguyen

What @danielbrowning208 said about prephrasing is huge. For the easy flaw questions, sure, it works. But for the hard ones, it will bite you. The LSAT writers know that people prephrase and are very good at laying down a trap answer choices. If you do come up with a prephrase, then notice that you did and be weary that answers may come up that capitalize on it.

What JY says about his process on flaws works for me like a charm:

Ask yourself:

1) Does the argument do this?
2) Is it a flaw that the argument makes?

Many many times there are questions that may seem attractive, but when you ask yourself if the argument even does this, the answer is no. It's not even a method of reasoning the argument uses.