I'm finding a pattern where the questions I mostly get wrong are inference and flaw, more so inference however.
I don't have a problem diagramming (at least I think I don't) but I seem to be misunderstanding the questions a lot!
What do you guys suggest? Am I overthinking the questions, how can I improve in these two types of questions?
Thanks!
Comments
Are you going over all the wrong answers for flaw questions in depth? When I struggled with that question type, that's what helped me the most. You have to think, "No, this isn't what this type of flaw looks like" in order to eliminate answers quickly and confidently.
Are you pre-phrasing? For example, don't just pick "assumes what it's trying to prove" on a hard Flaw question because you don't understand what's going on. I was guilty of this lol. Don't jump into the ACs until you know what the flaw is. You have to really force yourself to do this at first, but it will pay off tremendously.
Also, I memorized the list of common flaws J.Y. gives in the lessons. That really helped me with flaws. If you still don't get it, I would HIGHLY suggest The LSAT Trainer's flaw chapters - it was fantastic and invaluable for my prep vis-a-vis flaw questions.
Also, for inference questions make sure you understanding on conditional logic is spot on.
Review valid and invalid argument forms as well.
For both, exposure is the cure to missing multiple questions.
For flaw: There are many, and the test writers do a good job of hiding them. The more you expose yourself to flaw questions (by drilling), the more readily you'll see A) How they were hidden and What exactly the flaw is
For inference: Again, there are plenty. These questions rely on your ability to diagram (even if you think you know how to diagram, go back, and practice again). Again, the test writers do a pretty good job at hiding the inferences (e.g. is it A -> C? Or perhaps, [not] C -> [not] A? or something else?).
I guess, whoever said that "practice makes perfect" wasn't lying.