No idea how to identify an answer in harder flaw questions.

Mike Ross

SO it seems to be easy to own easy flaw questions but the harder ones...the answers are so vague! And I've been getting everyone of the harder flaws wrong! GAH! I'm taking my LSAT in FEB but I NEED to master these.

Please. Any help would be great.

Nilesh S

try revising the weaken questions before the flaw questions...I tried that and it worked for me..or at least look at the theory of the weaken questions before attempting flaw questions...no guarantee but it worked for me.

Christian Ripley

I used to have problems pre-phrasing and answering flaw questions that do not assert a logical fallacy such as an error of composition/division, a false choice, or a source argument. These are those questions that assert a flaw with the assumption made in the author's argument. The flaw being the presumption that a necessary assumption of the argument is true; this occurs in two ways. First, through not providing support for a necessary assumption. Second, through the lack of consideration that the necessary assumption is false.

Take a look at the flaw questions below, but treat them like a necessary assumption question. In doing so, find the assumption and then look for an answer that asserts the presumption of its truth in one of the two ways described above. Hope this helps.

Examples:

(1) PT35 S1 Q23

(2) PT35 S4 Q24

Emmetropic

It's difficult to tackle flaw questions because it is difficult to a) predict the flaw(s) and b) find their matches.

For a) you can strip every argument to its bare minimum core. Demonstrate how the arguments is using premises to push forth a conclusion. For example, "It is difficult to get analysis from the studies ---> there is no value in using them."

After having a clear idea of the core, it is helpful to get very irritated/annoyed at the conclusion. Like really? No value? Just because it is difficult? Every flaw (and assumption based) question is logically invalid. By being critical of the conclusion, but granting the premises, counter examples just start coming to me. In this case, the argument would be overlooking the fact that while analysis is difficult to acquire, there are many ways I can find value in them.

With my prediction in mind, I POE.

For b), I must realize that although my prediction may demonstrate a possible flaw, the choices may show me something I overlooked. So I start my POE process by eliminating at least a couple that are garbage (ones that clearly don't match up). Every flaw question will some choices describing things that never even happen. It's actually hilarious how bad some choices are. However, I expect that I will sometimes have to readjust or go back on choices I crossed out.

Then, by referring to my prediction and guiding myself back to the text, I am usually able to eliminate choices.

This worked for me, hopefully it works for you too.

goingfor99th

Are your fundamentals sound? Do you identify the 'flow' of the arguments from premises to conclusion? Have you memorized the flaws? Can you recite them from memory? I would recommend studying until your flaw definition recall is almost instant. I also memorized the common wrong answer choices in order to overcome more difficult flaw questions. I had a lot more confidence eliminating incorrect answers once I knew which traps to look for. This gave me more time to figure out the flaw by pitting two answer choices against each other.

Some of the most difficult questions ever written for the LSAT are flaw questions, so cut yourself some slack if it takes you a few encounters to harness the logic of each stimulus.

goingfor99th

PT14 S4 Q9 is an incredibly difficult/obscure flaw question. It's probably the silliest question ever written for the LSAT, imo.

brigitte

@goingfor99th said:
PT14 S4 Q9 is an incredibly difficult/obscure flaw question. It's probably the silliest question ever written for the LSAT, imo.

What is silly or obscure about this flaw? Genuinely curious -- it seems like confusing sufficient for necessary, which we see pretty frequently.

goingfor99th

@anonclsstudent said:

@goingfor99th said:
PT14 S4 Q9 is an incredibly difficult/obscure flaw question. It's probably the silliest question ever written for the LSAT, imo.

What is silly or obscure about this flaw? Genuinely curious -- it seems like confusing sufficient for necessary, which we see pretty frequently.

It is a mistaken reversal flaw but more than that the stimulus mistakenly assumes a premise, which you need to infer in order to logically justify the correct answer choice. This is the only time I've seen the LSAT do this, hence silly/obscure. The operation it tests you on is not difficult but it is so rare that I am not used to performing it.

goingfor99th

--

keets993

I just want to point out that this post is from 5 years ago. While I'm sure others will also find this beneficial, I don't know if asking the OP questions will.

goingfor99th

@keets993 said:
I just want to point out that this post is from 5 years ago. While I'm sure others will also find this beneficial, I don't know if asking the OP questions will.

Whoops! I didn't see that until just now.

Now I feel silly. :]

keets993

Whoops! I didn't see that until just now. Now I feel silly. :]

LOL, don't be. I've starred this for when I struggle with flaw questions, so thanks from future me