I just can't find the flaw

Comments

• 2 Likes

  gs556 Member Inactive Sage

  July 2015 568 karma

  In my mind I don't come up with an elaborate scenario but I do immediately question the assumption the argument makes.
  
  For example, in your argument: Does holding a cup of a water automatically mean I'm thirsty? No. Not at all.
  
  Maybe I was given the cup to hold, maybe I was thirsty but no longer am, maybe he is carrying the cup to someone else who is thirsty.
  
  Moving on from identifying the assumption, I then try to describe, in my own words what the argument did wrong:
  
  "Presumes without justifying the holding a cup of water ensures that Louis is thirsty."
• harrismegan Member

  July 2015 2074 karma

  If I'm not mistaken.... 7Sage has a printable PDF listing "19 Common Flawed Arguments". What I suggest you do is go through some flaw questions (or even past ones that you have blind reviewed in older sections), and categorize them based on that. You'll find that, although the stimulus subject changes, the flaw is still essentially the same and they just repeat. You should take the questions out/re write them/print them and put them under the category. I think then you'll start to see the pattern and it'll help you identify the same flaw in the future .
• louis2014 Alum Member

  July 2015 190 karma

  Thank you @harrismegan and @gs556 so I think you are leading me in the right direction as probably I am confused about something. I am not talking about Flaw/Descriptive Weakening question type in particular, I am talking about finding the flaw in every questions regardless whether it is strengthen, weaken, etc. Mike Kim starts with finding the flaw in every question and so as J.Y. says that every argument in the LSAT has a flaw. So I am talking about this flaw.
  
  Finding a flaw in every question or finding the flaw in Flaw/Descriptive Weakening questions is the same, isn't it? Let's say, is the question flaw in a weakening question would lie within the 19 types the @harrismegan mentioned? Or these are only for the Flaw/Descriptive Weakening question?
  
  Up until now I was assuming they are the same and that's why I started drilling Flaw type in Cambridge because I thought improving in this one would improve everything else.
  
  
• Matt1234567 Inactive ⭐

  July 2015 edited July 2015 1294 karma

  Hi Louis, finding flaws is a critical component of the LSAT. You've already read the Trainer, so I'm sure you're well aware of that. I would say yes, all arguments on the LSAT revolve around their flaws. The author is always 1) taking something for granted, or 2) failing to consider something when drawing a conclusion from his/her set of premises. You can use this technique for all the question types except for objective ones, such as MSS and MBT, etc.
  
  You gave an example of carrying a cup of water, therefore drawing the conclusion that someone is thirsty. You also mentioned that you hit an obstacle when it comes to thinking" why else is he carrying a cup of water then?"
  
  Use the two mantras taught by Mike Kim. 1) the author has taken for granted or assumed that just because Louis is carrying a cup of water, it means that he's thirsty. What if he's carrying the cup of water for someone else? What if he, as you mentioned, is going to water the plants? Or, 2) you can reword this as 'the author has failed to consider that Louis could be carrying a cup of water for other reasons than being thirsty.
  
  In both cases, the author has failed to consider other relevant information which is important in drawing out his conclusion. Remember, a piece does not = the puzzle.
  
  Keep following the flaw drills that he has in his book, and think of other scenarios where premises would not justify the conclusion being drawn.
• 1 Like

  Aiesha G. Alum Member

  July 2015 edited July 2015 199 karma

  I had a hard time identifying the flaw in various arguments as well but recently strengthened this skill. I re-read the chapter regarding the overview of flaws and it was easiest for me to think of it this way. Either the author is focusing on one "piece" and failing to consider other options (in doing so he is taking for granted that something has to be true when it in fact it does not based on this one piece of evidence), or the author is treating two situations, characteristics, as if they are equal when they are not (apples not oranges and usually the case in 1+1 not 3 flaws).
  
  The different flaws relate to the author doing one of these two things. It doesn't matter whether the author of the argument does this by focusing on an opinion, mistaking correlation for causation, switching necessary and sufficient terms etc. In each of these ways, (even when two ideas are brought together incorrectly) the author is still either failing to consider something or assuming a relationship that doesn't have to necessarily be so.