Narrowed down my weakness

KiruKiru

Hello everyone, I have narrowed down my weakness in LR section to Flaw, PFlaw and SA questions. Mostly getting these questions wrong. I was wondering if there is anything I can do besides just drilling a bunch of these question types?

MrSamIam

BR BR BR BR. You want to get to the point where flaws are easily identifiable and gaps just seem to bridge themselves. Maybe that's pushing it, but over time it gets easier. That's the point of drilling. The more you see the flaw or gap, the more readily you'll be able to identify it on another question.
What is your issue, exactly? Do you not see why something is a flaw? Does the answer to a SA question not seem to bridge the gap? Those are the issues I had when I first started studying.

stepharizona

@MrSamIam nails it in the head. I had the same problems and it took me a really long time to actually identify the type of flaw each argument represents.

I think I rushed this in my prep and it caused me lots of problems. Really understanding the type of flaw in the argument and how it relates to the argument really will help you do much better at these.

In addition to BRing these go back and watch the lessons and really understand the 18/19 flaw types.

MrSamIam

@stepharizona There comes a time when we all realize...that's the nature of the beast!
@KiruKiru Don't forget, most of the stimuli are just "duplicates" of past stimuli...they're just worded differently. Eventually you'll get to the point where you read a flaw question, and half way through the stimuli you'll say to yourself, "Ha! Flaw!" Better yet, there are times when you'll probably be able to predict the flaw before they even commit it. For instance, if I'm doing a flaw question, and the author mentions "amounts" and "percentages" I immediately tell myself that they're about to use a "low percentage" to explain a "low amount" or something along those lines.

GSU Hopeful

@KiruKiru For flaws in particular, the Trainer would be a great read if you haven't done so already.

runiggyrun

@KiruKiru I would say of those the SA should be the easiest to get a handle on, and the Parallel Flaw probably the most difficult, as it would require mastering the "garden variety" flaw questions first.
You might want to go over the curriculum for those again, and maybe pick up the Trainer too (if you want something "written down" in addition to the videos).
For starters, a couple of pointers that might help tackle SA.
For SA, the correct answer is the one that guarantees the conclusion when inserted between the premises and the conclusion. You might want to bracket the premises, bracket the conclusion (in shortened form if need be), and try to read the argument like this:
We know A (premise). If we also know B (correct SA answer) then C (conclusion) must be true.
Example. Birds have feathers. Therefore birds fly.
Correct SA: Everything with feathers flies.
This is one type of SA question (but they do a good job hiding the premises and the conclusions, so you must be able to correctly identify which is which).
The other type is the "shift" type, where the premises talk about one thing and the conclusion talks about something slightly different. Because of real-life experience, we are often tempted to take those two as being the same, but they are not. The sufficient assumption will bridge that gap.
Ex: Sales of large cars have declined this year. People must be buying fewer SUV's this year than they did last year.
The gap is that SUV's are not the same thing as "large cars", even though we might think of them as being the same. Maybe people are buying the same number of SUV's, but fewer trucks.
SA: The only large cars are SUVs. Now the gap is bridged and the conclusion makes sense.
I'll try and think about some pointers for the other two, but the curriculum lessons should give you a good start.

stepharizona

Couldn't agree more @"GSU Hopeful" it was after I revisited the trainer my brain went OH!!!!!

I didn't take the time to actually right out all of the drills in the flaw section the first time I went through the book, as I though ok yeah, simple, I get this... To be plagued by flaw issued for a really long time...

Finally after realizing I was going to miss Dec test I started reading the trainer again and had my mind blown.

Seriously I think we're all such in a rush to get to questions we brush over these fundimentals or think "of course, simple" without realizing the true magnitude of their importance.

The trainer flaw chapters and drills are key. I've been plagued by 1+1=/3 and didn't realize it for way too long.