Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 13 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Flaw conundrum
LSATcantwin
Alum Member Sage ⭐
So as I am going about my studying I am finding that flaw questions are particularly hard for me. I have noticed a pattern though. I get roughly 60% of flaw questions correct. The way the questions answers are worded is what trips me up. I have noticed there are two "kinds" of flaw answer choices. There are those that relate the answers directly back to the stimulus;
Example - 62-4-11
The reporter concludes from the evidence showing only M can cure athlete's foot that M always can cure athletes foot.
or there are those that make the flaw abstract;
Examples - 64-3-14
It repudiates a claim merely on the grounds that an inadequate argument had been given for it
It fails to consider that, even if an argument's conclusion is false, some of the assumptions used to justify that conclusion nonetheless be true.
It is these that I answer with almost 0 confidence and inevitably get wrong. Thinking about it deeper, I can almost never describe a flaw in abstract form. I have decent success on LR (-6 to -8) per section because I can read the stimulus and in that specific instance patch the holes/connect the bridges/strengthen/weaken. I can never tell exactly WHAT the author has made a mistake on.
Obviously this is a problem. If not just for flaw questions alone. This contributes to about -4ish questions per test because flaws questions appear roughly 8 times.
What can I do to train myself on these kind of questions?
Comments
Hi there,
Completely understand where you're coming from. Flaw questions were once the bane of my existence (by far my highest priority according to 7Sage Analytics). Now, three months later, they are in my comfort zone. It's genuinely the craziest thing. The two question types that gave me the most trouble starting out (Parallel Reasoning and Flaw) have become the questions I answer with the highest accuracy.
Like you, I struggled with the abstract language. It really frustrated me (and still does) that most study materials teach Flaw questions by giving laundry lists of logical fallacies. Rarely do the Flaw questions (especially past Q10) fall so easily into these categories. I wish I had a golden bullet for you -- I don't -- but I can tell you that repetition and exposure to the language they use over and over helps a lot. Go over the questions that you miss again and again until their answers become second nature.
The most important thing to remember when answering is that the correct answer MUST be descriptively accurate AND describing the significant flaw. Trap answer choices will deceptively misinterpret slight details from the stimulus or give a compelling flaw that does not necessarily apply. With the abstract language, you need to be able to connect the language to the more concrete stimulus. If you do not understand an answer choice, DO NOT CHOOSE IT unless you are in a time crunch and have a strong gut instinct. You must be 100% sure on the descriptive accuracy and on the flaw for it to actually be the right answer. Otherwise, there's likely a very subtle answer choice describing a flaw you were not anticipating.
Hang in there!
Have you checked out The LSAT Trainer for flaws!? That's where I started with them and I can say it made them very intuitive. Even the more challenging ones. You just have to practice seeing past the BS and into the argument core. Practice underlining the conclusion and/or support. This way you'll more easily be able to see what's not quite right.
Also the list JY has us memorize is also a very useful tool. Just having a name in mind makes pre-phrasing much easier; at least for me.
I do what's so-called Cookie Cutter Review on each PT. This seems to be working especially for Flaw questions.
Whenever I do a Flaw question, I try to label the question as one of 19 common flaws.
https://7sage.com/lesson/19-common-argument-flaws/
For each answer choice of Flaw questions, I try to come up with other ways of phrasing using other PTs I've taken.
For example, PT22.S2.Q25 had three cookie-cutter answer choices:
(A) over-generalization
(B) sufficient-necessary confusion
(C) uses the term unclearly
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-2-question-25/#comment-61737
Also, there is a common flaw in all questions: divergence of sets. The premise and the conclusion may be talking about (slightly) different sets.
In PT55.S3.Q18, the flaw here is that the argument overlooks the possibility that the premise and the conclusion may be talking about different sets of abilities.
[children’s cognitive development] =/= [child’s creativity and resourcefulness]
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-3-question-18/#comment-62030
In order to strengthen this argument, we must try to converge the sets.
For example, PT50.S4.Q9 is a PSA question, but the premise and the conclusion are talking about different sets of people. The task here is to converge the sets. People [who eat saturated fat and increase unsaturated fat] have to be replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat.
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-4-question-09/#comment-61721
@btmccartney I'm working on it, thanks for the tips. The abstract language kills me. I'm going to have to just drill them into my head until I can both predict them and understand what they mean.
@"Alex Divine" I actually think the LSAT trainer hurt me a bit. They are way to simplistic with their definitions of flaws. It helped me with all the other question types, but when I see a 1+1 = 3 I have no idea how to translate that into the complex language of the answer choices.
@akistotle I will give this a shot. Anything to help me improve on my accuracy with these questions. Right now I can narrow it down to roughly 2 answer choices. I then always choose wrong. haha.
Ahh I see. The simplicity is the beauty of the thing. Though I will say that combined with JY's lessons on flaws + list to memorize really helped. A "1+1= 3 for example would just be a flaw that equates things that shouldn't be. Something like, "In 2007 50% of people had a Myspace. In 2009 only 75% had Myspace. Thus it follows in 2010 85% of people will have Myspace."
See I understand what a 1+1=3 is, my problem is when they word that answer choice as;
"The argument mistakenly compares two things that cannot be compared, and then draws an inaccurate conclusion based on that comparison."
My head does not say "oh! that's very obviously a description of a 1+1=3 flaw" instead I sit there saying "wtf does that convoluted sentence even say?"
Hmmm... Ok. I would try to re-read the chapter then perhaps or forget it all together. Just might not be helpful for you which is fine. The LSAT Trainer was the first book I used, so it was my first experience to flaws and I always appreciated the simplicity over the labeling. I feel like the labels are very useful, but a double edge sword. It gets very easy to start applying them to the wrong flaws when you make them sound right in your own head.
@LSATcantwin I get what you mean about not knowing what the AC mean. I could prephrase and know the flaw but still select the wrong answer because I had no clue what the AC meant. I asked around for a list of LR questions by flaw type but everyone swears that it's not necessary and all you need is to be able to recognize the flaw. Well, not for me. I'm currently working my way through the Cambridge Flaw pkg for this very reason. I need to get used to what a circular reasoning AC, a sufficient and necessary confusion AC or an ad hominem AC could possibly look like. Obviously the AC doesn't just say ad hominem. Filtering by the specific type just helps with familiarity and repetition just like anything else. And you're right, all flaw questions don't have a flaw that comes from that list of 19. I know the list wasn't meant to be exhaustive and it has helped in recognizing the common flaws but again, for me it's all about the language. Another thing I did was just Google the flaw types. Sometimes examples and explanations helped me understand how an AC might be worded. Lastly, I ran across a tidbit on flaws today from a Kaplan explanation. I'm not sure if this is specific to your issue but maybe it'll help in the long run. I'm paraphrasing here...when AC are abstract, think about what the stimulus would have to look like if a given choice were intended to be correct. Match up the elements of the choice to the stimulus. If one element is missing, you know you've found an incorrect AC. Hopefully that'll help some way. There is a partial list of flaw questions by type on TLS and The LSAT Blog. I initially started out noting the flaw types so that I could add to the list but I've gotten pretty loose with it. No promises but I'll try to pass it along.