It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Hi guys!
So on every PT my analytics show the red bubble glaring at me containing Flaw. I've been practicing for the last month strictly doing problem sets on flaw questions, and I have the PowerScore bible that I re-read from but I still get them wrong!!!! I'm frustrated because I get a decent chunk of them right, but then I will be easily fooled on other questions. It's my highest bubble and the one that will not budge. I know if I get them under control I can comfortably get my goal score. Taking in June and have a lot of hope I can still improve. PLEASE any advice to quickly master? I think my knowledge is there, and I'm aware of the patterns but still mess up. Ugh, the test stress is hitting me, but I need to just keep my eye on the prize- LSAT is such a mental test. Anyways, if anyone has major tips/suggestions specifically about flaw questions please bequeath me with your wisdom. Thanks in advance.
Comments
Memorize the list of common flaws. Then as you read the stimulus, try to anticipate the flaw it's about to make. See a correlation? There's a good chance there will be a causation flaw. See a percentage? Your mind should be on high alert for a percentage vs. real number flaw. See that A is required for B? Expect a sufficiency/necessity confusion.
The more you can anticipate the common flaws, the easier it is to see them.
Thank you!! I've tried doing this but will work harder seeing as it only works sometimes. Could you expand on sufficiency/necessity? I know it's so easy to get once you understand it but I always feel like I make flaws fit the mold and choose it when it doesn't apply. Thanks again so much!!!
Sufficiency/necessity could look something like this:
Bob must have gone to the grocery store today. I know this because he didn't have ice cream in his house this morning. If Bob goes to the grocery store, he buys ice cream. And right now, there's ice cream in his house.
It's a little hard to explain (and truthfully, I still struggle with this a bit). But basically it's like a 2 part process. What you're looking for first is one condition that leads to a second condition. If you see this, then look for one of 2 things:
1) the second condition being true, then concluding that the first condition must be true.
2) the first condition not being true, then concluding that the second condition must also not be true.
Not sure what you are using for drills, but on the recent tests the descriptive flaws are far more prevalent than the classic flaws. You absolutely must know the classics cold, of course, but you need to be able to ID the gap or the diversion in the argument, regardless if it fits a category or not. I would focus the majority of my efforts on the descriptive and really deconstruct the pieces of the argument and identify the support and lack thereof. I rarely miss any flaw questions, so when I encounter a descriptive flaw, 99% of the time, I ID it as soon as it shows up in the stimulus and move to the ACs with a very strong pre-phrase.
Now, just in case your data shows exactly the opposite, make sure to pull all your missed Flaw Qs from recent practice and make a T-chart to ID classic vs descriptive. If it's the classics, then make flash cards with your own example of each to force yourself to articulate the flaws (if you haven't already) and drill those too.
You mentioned that this can fix your target score gap, so even with the minimal appearance of classic they could still be the culprit. Based on overall volume descriptive is far more likely to hurt you.
Thank you guys! Very helpful information.
https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/16979