I believe one of the flaw drills is mis-categorized. Pls correct me if I'm wrong.

Moon10YG

I feel that this question categorizes more as a MoR, or MISC, than a Flaw/Descriptive.

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-07/

Although we were determining the argument’s “flaw”, we had to choose an answer choice that summarized the attorney’s flawed “Reasoning”, not its actual flaw. The correct answer choice is exceedingly different from the normal flaw a.c.

If this question wasn’t categorized under flaw drills, I think more people would have gotten this answer correctly, especially because we’ve already established a strong foundation for MoR questions.

Regardless, I should be more careful by reading the question stem more meticulously.

Matthew524

It is still a flaw question because you are basically finding the flaw in the attorney's argument based on the question stem. The question stem states the "attorneys argument is fallacious because it reasons that". Just because it has the word reason doesn't mean its a method of reasoning question. The primary reason it is a flaw question because it basically says: Why is the argument the attorney using flawed? The word fallacious is a primary indicator that this is a flawed question stem. Also the answer choice is C because that is ultimately the flaw the argument is making, by basically saying if Smith didn't refute the claim that means he must have in fact done what was said. Just because someone didn't refute something doesn't mean it to be true which is why answer choice C is correct.

MrSamIam

Once you've developed a strong understanding of the LR section, you'll realize that the question stem becomes somewhat trivial. Now that's not to say that you should ignore the Q-stem...don't ever do that!
What I'm saying is, most LR question could be changed to other questions. In this case, had they asked you for the MoR instead of the flaw, the correct AC would not change.
By the way, a flawed MoR is still a flaw.

Moon10YG

The only reason why I'm mentioning this is because we are choosing an answer choice that is "descriptive" of the stimulus - an a.c. that rephrases the part that is flawed-, not choosing an answer choice that is descriptive of the type of flaw in the reasoning - the usual type of answer choices.

I think that's the reason why Answer Choice E was popular. We were relatively certain that the flaw was something along the lines of "causation confusion," so we were quick to skim over and choose the answer choice that states "not necessarily."

Even J.Y. himself mentions that the LSAT "pulls a fast one on us with the question stem" because it was asking for the "flawed reasoning" of the Attorney, not the flaw.

I guess my question is: is this type of question an outlier? I want to sort of have one thought process for the flaw questions, and would prefer not to constantly differentiate whether the question is asking for the flaw, or its part in reasoning that is flawed.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I really appreciate it.