Flaw Questions

tanes256

Does anybody know of LR questions that are grouped together by the type of flaw? A group of questions that all contain correlation/causation flaws, circular reasoning, etc. for drilling and BR. I'm trying to get more familiar with the way the flaws are worded in AC. On the harder flaw questions I don't always recognize the flaw or I'm not interpreting the answer choices to be that flaw. The latter is more often. When I prephrase I have the correct flaw but sometimes the answer choices are just worded crazy and I have no clue what they're saying. Also, I noticed someone on a forum indicating the flaw for the wrong answer choices. Anyone do this during the timed PT, or do you do it just during BR? When eliminating AC my thought process is normally, "no, the author doesn't do this," and I just move on rather than indicating what flaw that AC is describing.

TheMikey

I don't think there's anywhere that has flaw questions grouped by the flaws themselves.

tanes256

@TheMikey yeah I didn't think so. Just asking in case someone created something similar for themselves.

Daniel.Sieradzki

It is actually a really good thing to identify flaws and categorize them. It helps you get quicker on them. Identifying the flaw in each wrong answer choice is very useful. As J.Y. says, each wrong flaw answer choice is a correct answer to a different flaw question. However, I would only do that during BR. On a timed test, it is more about identifying the flaw in the stimulus, pre-phrasing the flaw, and then hunting for it in the answer choices. Your approach sounds good.

I also keep a list of the flaw questions I got wrong so that I can review which flaws I am weak on. Thankfully, flaw questions are one of the most learnable LR types. There are only so many common flaws and they repeat often.

If you notice that there is a certain flaw type giving you trouble, I would highly recommend keeping a list.

tanes256

@Daniel.Sieradzki i didn't memorize the common flaw types and I was doing fine until I hit the hardest question types. I've made flash cards to study at work now until I can get those. And I've been making notes along the way about certain flaws that I don't recognize or that I was having a hard time finding in the AC.

Daniel.Sieradzki

@tanes256 Yeah, that sounds like a great plan. I know what you mean about the really hard answers having strangely worded correct answer choices. That is completely deliberate. They often use abstract language. I find that I have to try to connect the abstract language to things in the stimulus.

Nanchito-1-1

https://7sage.com/lesson/19-common-argument-flaws/

It defiantly helps to know what kind of flaw you're looking at and how to attack it. The trainer has also helped me with flaws. Before you find out that you got something wrong write or type out the explanation to yourself and why each answer choice is right or wrong. That is something that has helped me immensely. Watch the video and compare your reasoning to jy's.

Gladiator_2017

During my blind review I've begun to retype the questions I struggle with and have Google docs categorized by flaw for each type. This has helped reinforce the common flaws but also helps me understand the nuances of the flaw. It's also great for when you need to review/drill.

tanes256

@nanchito @Daniel.Sieradzki thx guys! I have made flashcards of the 19 common flaws that are in the cc and I'm now studying them at work. I read the Trainer too, but I'm guessing it's time to revisit for a refresher. On the harder questions I'm having a hard time understanding the AC even if I have the correct flaw. The wording is crazy on some of them. I'm sure it'll get better though with more practice. I initially didn't bother to really memorize the common flaws because if I can prephrase or determine the flaw I didn't really need to memorize them. Ha, I was wrong! LSAC wins again! LOL It definitely helps to be familiar with common flaws that they may use. I have also implemented determining the flaw type for the wrong AC during my drilling and BR. It's good practice. I wouldn't try it on a PT. Another thing that trips me up is eliminating AC if they discuss something not discussed in the stimulus. Depending on the wording of the AC that's not necessarily a reason to eliminate.

tanes256

@Gladiator_2015 your approach sounds great! I'm not familiar with Google docs but I'll look into that. Have you noticed a pattern or similarities in how certain flaws are worded? I know they can be all over the place for the harder questions. I was BR a question earlier this week that had the confusing sufficient and necessary conditions but I couldn't find that in any of the AC so I thought I was wrong. Of course after reviewing the explanations it made sense. From that question, I started writing why the wrong AC are wrong and also noting that particular flaw and I've noticed that I'm not interpreting the AC correctly due to what I believed to be term equivocation. In other question types we can't assume that xxx also means xxx. That's not so much the case here. There's one that I remember the AC mentioning population density but the stimulus didn't mention it. It only mentioned area and population size and overcrowding. There was another AC where we were to assume that having an average salary or higher than average salary for the community equaled having an economic advantage. Hopefully, I'm recalling those AC correctly, but those are the types of things that are tripping me up.

Gladiator_2017

This strategy has definitely helped me track the various ways answer choices can be worded for sufficeint/necessary flaws. Also, it helped me really understand causation arguments. For example, for arguments that concluded there was no causal relationship it wasn't at first apparent to me that the flaw is it fails to consider that it could party cause x (this was really tough for me to see in the science related questions where it was just hard to parse through what was going on). And so keeping a list of the different types of causation flaws (not just correlation/ causation or B caused A instead of vice versa) has really helped me understand this particular flaw in more detail. I hope this helps!

tanes256

@Gladiator_2015 I see what you mean! Thx for this. I'm eager to implement this into my studies!