Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Improving on LR flaw questions?

itsemmarobynitsemmarobyn Member
edited November 2019 in General 272 karma

Hi everyone, I'm consistently getting hammered on flaw questions and though I've been trying to drill them for the past week, I'm not seeing much improvement. Any improvement strategies or advice you have would be really helpful.


  • Ms NikkiMs Nikki Alum Member
    128 karma
    1. Most flaws are of the same type. I believe there is a lesson on these types in the core curriculum. Make sure to watch the video explanations for the flaw questions, as JY points them out really well. If you understand the types of flaws, you will start to recognize the language the LSAT uses to identify them. Find the flaw in the stim, really understand it, then hunt for the answer. Really pay attention to referential phrasing in the ACs.

    Maybe try coming up with examples for every flaw type that are easy to use as analogies for other cases.

    For example, sometimes the argument concludes a conclusion is false because the person making the claim is self-interested, is under investigation, has said something contrary in the past. This is called ad hominem. I've seen so many questions that say 'Prof X has theory A. But Prof X also says to doubt any theory you hear (or some variation trash talking prof X - maybe he's being paid by someone, he is the youngest prof, he was wrong about another theory, he changed his theory in the past). Therefore, theory A is wrong.

    Another example - Mayor Bob says to donate to charity. Yet, Mayor Bob has not donated to charity in the last 6 years. Therefore, we shouldn't donate to charity.
    ----Yeah, major bob is a hypocrite, but there is no reason to believe he is wrong.

    Another popular one is suff/necessity confusion. What JY calls 'the oldest trick in the book'.
    All jedis use the force. Sam uses the force. Therefore, Sam is a jedi.

    There is one about proportion - not knowing the denominator in some comparison. 20 people in my class got sick last week, but only 4 in your class did. Therefore, my class is way sicker than yours.
    ---Well, how many people are in each class? I mean if my class has 200 people and yours has 5, it seems that my conclusion is flawed.

    Another one about theories assuming something is wrong because there is conflicting evidence or theories.
    Theory A says it will rain tomorrow. But theory B says it won't rain. Therefore, theory A must be false. You see this type a lot with science or anthropology theories.

    There is one called False dichotomy. Making it seem like there is only two options when there could be more.
    -Ex - Theory A says it will rain today. But it was snowing earlier. Therefore it won't' rain.
    Well, come on, we know that it can both rain and snow on one day.

    My favorite is one you hear people do all the time. Using one or two examples to prove something true or false.
    ---You say driving at night has the biggest risk of accidents. But I've driven every night this week and I haven't crashed once! You much be wrong.

    There are many more, but these are just examples. When you get a question wrong, look at the flaws and try to come up with your own similar examples. They repeat over and over and over again.

  • The JudgesThe Judges Free Trial Member
    364 karma

    If you want a challenge I am pretty sound on flaw questions, but the flaws on PT 82 are particularly difficult.

  • itsemmarobynitsemmarobyn Member
    272 karma

    Thank you @"Ms Nikki" that was super helpful! :smiley:

  • Ms NikkiMs Nikki Alum Member
    128 karma

    @itsemmarobyn said:
    Thank you @"Ms Nikki" that was super helpful! :smiley:

    I'm glad! Thank you.

Sign In or Register to comment.