Free LSAT resources
Free law school admissions resources

Flaw or descriptive weakening

(Flaw)

Stems that ask us to articulate a flaw in the stimulus' argument, either in abstract terms or by pointing out a weakness.

Avg. 3.85 per section

“The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it”

12%
21%
35%
20%
13%

Avg. difficulty: 3.0

Correct answer criteria

  • Accurate description of why the argument's reasoning is flawed. The answer could be phrased in the following ways: 1. Abstract description of the bad reasoning 2. What the argument overlooks 3. What the argument assumes

Key tactics

  • Identify the conclusion and the premises
  • Think about why the conclusion doesn't have to be true even if the premises are true
  • Sometimes you'll be able to recognize a common form of flaw (confusing sufficient and necessary conditions, correlation to cause, etc.)

Answer choice tips

  • Be careful about answers that misdescribe the conclusion
  • Correct answers must (1) be descriptively accurate, and (2) constitute bad reasoning
  • Answers phrased in the form of what the argument overlooks can be analyzed just like Weaken answers. (So the tendencies that apply to Weaken answers apply to these answers, too!)
  • Answers phrased in the form of what the argument assumes can be analyzed just like Necessary Assumption answers. (So the tendencies that apply to Necessary Assumption answers apply to these answers, too!)

Looking for more?

7Sage offers a full course of video lessons that cover each question type in depth, targeted drills, and performance analytics.

Logical reasoning question types

Alternate explanation Analogy (LR) Argument part Bad authority Causal chain Causal mechanism Causal reasoning Circular reasoning Conditional reasoning Confusing sufficiency and necessity Correlation Diagram? Directionally wrong Eliminating options Equivocation Evaluate Except (LR) Failed alternate explanation False dichotomy Fighting the hypothetical Fill in the blank Flaw or descriptive weakening Illusory inconsistency Inference Internal contradiction Irrelevant corroboration Kick it up Lack of support v. false conclusion Link assumption Main conclusion or main point Math Mental state v. reality Method of reasoning or descriptive Miscellaneous (LR) Misdirected response Most strongly supported Must be false Must be true Necessary assumption Parallel flawed method of reasoning Parallel method of reasoning Part v. whole Phenomenon-hypothesis (LR) Plausibility Point at issue: agree Point at issue: disagree Principle PSA - find or complete the application PSA - find the rule Quantifier Relative v. absolute Resolve reconcile or explain Rule-application Sampling Source attack Strengthen Sufficient assumption Time Unwarranted assumption Value judgment Weaken Weighing factors

Reading comprehension question types

Analogy (RC) Application Art Author’s attitude Author’s perspective Comparative Critique or debate Describe approach Describe organization Describe relationship Except (RC) Humanities Implied Law Logical continuation Main point Meaning in context (of word, phrase, or idea) Miscellaneous (RC) Other’s perspective Phenomenon-hypothesis (RC) Principle or generalization Problem-analysis Purpose in context (of word, phrase, or idea) Purpose of paragraph Purpose of passage Science Single position Spotlight Stated Structure WSE (RC)

Confirm action

Are you sure?