... has been one parallel flaw question I can think of ... the same mistake. That question is: Pt 51 Section 1 Question 20. That is ... the only question I can ... the descriptor for the flaw question after we spotted the mistake ...
I've been really looking into sufficient/necessary flaws lately. A particularly difficult way in which the test writers described the flaw appears on PT A section 4 question 20.
Here is a _very_ partial list of correlation-causation flaws:
PT20.S1.Q10 (★★★), PT20.S4.Q14 (★★★), PT30.S2.Q25 (★★★★), PT31.S2.Q9 (★★★★), PT64.S1.Q5 (★), PT65.S1.Q8 (★), PT66.S4.Q25(★★★)
... them. You can revisit the question(s) after you learn more ... point us to a specific question or two that you particularly ... or telling us the PT number,section, and question number. Perhaps we will ...
3:44: "Or, maybe they did in fact have a HUUUUGE boner for Homer but there wasn't enough Homer to go around."
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-21/
... the structure.
In PT31 Section2Question 04, the sentence with "what ... ://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-2-question-04/
https://7sage.com ...
2. I also don't get ... .com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-3-question-12/)
). ... 7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-2-question-08/)) As @"Jonathan Wang ... every single parallel reasoning question). Regular chess is also ...