For Questions where you need to match the argument in the stimulus, are they never flawed?

LSATKingsman

Ok so when you get a question that asks you to find the argument with the most simillar reasoning or matches the arguement above are they never a flawed argument? I know we get questions that ask you to match the flaw but I am hoping to use this thinking to eliminate a wrong answer choice or two is this holds.

In short if the Question stem does not say "flaw" is it ok to assume the correct answer choice and the argument in the stimulus are logical arguments?

kennedybj

Pretty sure the argument could be flawed or not.but im sure there are others who probably have a more concrete answer lol

Pacifico

You either have parallel reasoning or parallel flaw questions. The former have valid arguments and the latter have flawed arguments.

Pacifico

I'm told there are exceptions to this rule... but I've never seen one... perhaps @c.janson35 will magically appear to enlighten us... I can only recall PF questions with stems that have at least a small indicator to show their is a flaw (e.g.- "the questionable reasoning").

c.janson35

Lol like a republican debate, when my name is invoked I have the opportunity to answer...

There are instances in which parallel reasoning questions do not explicitly state that the stimulus is flawed, but the stimulus is nonetheless still flawed. In these situations, evaluate the argument (as you should always do) and note that you cannot select an answer choice that presents a valid argument if the stimulus is invalid. This is a good way to eliminate answer choices.

Pacifico

There are examples of this on 61 and 64 as @c.janson35 was kind enough to show me. So it is still happening and not just an older quirk of the test.

LSATKingsman

@Pacifico @c.janson35 Thank you for the response I will for sure keep this in mind when eliminating answer choice if I get stuck. I am glad I was able to get an answer on this because I almost have a second brain for if I am in the "flaw universe" haha

deleted account

@LSATKingsman:

I actually think that's one of the best ways to do these. Is it flawed? Eliminate everything that isn't. Not flawed? Eliminate everything that is. You can even count sentences: ie in the stimulus the flaw was in the third sentence, so it should be here too.

Pacifico

@josephellengar said:
You can even count sentences: ie in the stimulus the flaw was in the third sentence, so it should be here too.

I would highly recommend not doing this. It's pretty standard practice for the test writers to make a A-->B-->C therefore C-->A type argument in order in the stimulus only to start each AC with the conclusion. Shortcuts will screw you over in the long run and it really shouldn't take that long to parse out the dynamics of each AC.