cavalier2015 wrote:thanks for the help. i think that makes more sense.
i might be getting ahead of myself, but do you guys find yourself finding it hard to categorize flaws according to the types (and subsets) that Mike has laid out. I understand that this is something that Mike actually doesn't want us to do but I am starting to think this might be helpful in answering questions. I find myself using the "Taken for granted" method and most of the time I end up accurately finding the flaw but find myself spending a lot of time on the answer choices. It's hard for me to "match" the flaw to the answer choices or make the jump as to what might strengthen or weaken the support. Am I just being really dumb and need to spend more time early in the book, or work through it?
I've felt the same way as you guys, Cav and Louis. I just finished the first part of the LR in the Trainer (Chapter 9?) and while I feel fairly confident identifying argument flaws and answering them accordingly, the matching drills that Mike includes have taken the most time for me. It really made it easier to write out flaws under each question and then compare the similarity.
As you guys were discussing, I plan on finishing the Trainer before doing any intense drilling. Like Mike emphasizes repeatedly, I think it's imperative to have really well-rounded strategies and habits before you go incessantly attacking various question types. Once I'm there, I want to focus on my weaknesses and drill them into the ground.
Anyway, what's everyone's NYE plans tonight? I bartend at a campus bar at school so I'm hoping to make a little cash tonight (and maybe get a phone number or two