Recently I started noticing a pattern in the flaw questions I've done in LR, all of a sudden I realized this: because A contradicts B, so B is right and A is wrong. An example in my head is an LR question that says A did a testimony about John Edwards' case (fake name, cuz cannot recall the exact name in that question). Edwards was acquitted by the jury, however, A later expressed an opinion that he thinks Edwards was guilty. The conclusion goes: the jury did not believe A's testimony. The explanation could also be that A changed his opinion on Edwards after testimony?
After realizing this, I went thru the Cambridge Flaw type questions and found quite a few questions actually have this flaw pattern. I thought I wanted to share and discuss with TLS fellows about this, if you already know this, please forgive my naivety.
Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
1 post • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:48 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests