I am having a tough time wrapping my head around flaw questions. They are a total time suck for me and I usually end up getting them wrong. I've reviewed JY's material and drilled flaw questions but have only seen small improvement. Has anyone else had trouble with these?
Comments
A (premise) ----- B (conclusion)
For example, a common flaw stimulus I've come across is where you're introduced to a drug, a study, and then the author makes the conclusion that, based on the study, drug causes x.
When I read that, I recognize that "drug causes x" is the main conclusion. Then I think about why the author believes that and then I recall that the primary evidence he/she is using is the study. So below, I'll write:
study -- drug causes x
And then, I'll look at the argument core and think about what flaw is there. In the case of studies showing a causal relationship between x and y, we need to know if the study is representative, or to make sure the participants weren't predisposed to y even without x. I'll make sure to write down "unrepresentative" or "no cause, same effect" and then go to the answer choices.
For me, writing down the flaw is CRUCIAL because it forces me to not get swayed by tempting answer choices. The other most important aspect about this method is to recognize that I need to be flexible because sometimes the flaw I anticipate won't be the flaw in the answer choices. When that happens to me, I try to spot any other flaws.
Download the Cambridge flawed reasoning packet and just practice each question three or four times. You'll start to see the patterns.
Although I still struggle with level 3/4 necessary assumption questions, I've pretty much conquered the FR questions
neetu_dhanju@hotmail.com