I made my own Flaw question, check it out Forum

[itachiuchiha]

A TLSer with a 3.9 GPA and 160 LSAT posted on TLS asking for advice on law school admissions to a top 50 school. The response he received was to retake the LSAT or don't go to law school.

The argument of the TLS responder's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

(A) The argument fails to recognize that the student may receive admission to a top 50 school.
(B) The argument fails to consider that the student is a bad test taker and will not score above a 160, regardless of how much they study.
(C) The argument cites irrelevant evidence.
(D) The argument assumes what it sets out to prove.
(E) The argument concludes that a claim about a causal connection is false on the basis of a lack of evidence for the claim.

Don't bash me because this is a shitty question, I'm only human. The intent is to poke fun of the assumption of many TLSers.

[Bildungsroman]

(F) The advice is not flawed.

[rad lulz]

this is crap

[Mal Reynolds]

You're an idiot.

[dr123]

retake

[itachiuchiha]

hahahhahahahahaha, somehow I knew that these would be the type of responses that i would get LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Micdiddy]

I don't see how any of these answers are right from YOUR perspective. C comes the closest, but the stimulus didn't mention responders providing evidence, so that can't be the flaw.

Eta: actually "don't go to law school" is pretty relevant no matter which way you swing it. B can't be right because "don't go to law school" is considering the test taker can't score above 160. D can't be right because no one "assumes op should retake or don't go" in order to conclude "op should retake or don't go."
Oh I get it, you wrote a flawed question, not a flaw question.

[ManOfTheMinute]

hahahhahahahahaha, somehow I knew that these would be the type of responses that i would get LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOO

You are brilliant

[txdude45]

Oh I get it, you wrote a flawed question, not a flaw question.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

retake

[itachiuchiha]

I don't see how any of these answers are right from YOUR perspective. C comes the closest, but the stimulus didn't mention responders providing evidence, so that can't be the flaw.

Eta: actually "don't go to law school" is pretty relevant no matter which way you swing it. B can't be right because "don't go to law school" is considering the test taker can't score above 160. D can't be right because no one "assumes op should retake or don't go" in order to conclude "op should retake or don't go."
Oh I get it, you wrote a flawed question, not a flaw question.

indeed i did! indeed i did. the question wasn't meant to be answered really. just to troll some tlsers

[Mal Reynolds]

I don't see how any of these answers are right from YOUR perspective. C comes the closest, but the stimulus didn't mention responders providing evidence, so that can't be the flaw.

Eta: actually "don't go to law school" is pretty relevant no matter which way you swing it. B can't be right because "don't go to law school" is considering the test taker can't score above 160. D can't be right because no one "assumes op should retake or don't go" in order to conclude "op should retake or don't go."
Oh I get it, you wrote a flawed question, not a flaw question.

indeed i did! indeed i did. the question wasn't meant to be answered really. just to troll some tlsers

You trolled us with a bad joke criticizing good advice? Congrats bro.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

I don't see how any of these answers are right from YOUR perspective. C comes the closest, but the stimulus didn't mention responders providing evidence, so that can't be the flaw.

Eta: actually "don't go to law school" is pretty relevant no matter which way you swing it. B can't be right because "don't go to law school" is considering the test taker can't score above 160. D can't be right because no one "assumes op should retake or don't go" in order to conclude "op should retake or don't go."
Oh I get it, you wrote a flawed question, not a flaw question.

indeed i did! indeed i did. the question wasn't meant to be answered really. just to troll some tlsers

retake

[wtrc]

I don't see how any of these answers are right from YOUR perspective. C comes the closest, but the stimulus didn't mention responders providing evidence, so that can't be the flaw.

Eta: actually "don't go to law school" is pretty relevant no matter which way you swing it. B can't be right because "don't go to law school" is considering the test taker can't score above 160. D can't be right because no one "assumes op should retake or don't go" in order to conclude "op should retake or don't go."
Oh I get it, you wrote a flawed question, not a flaw question.

indeed i did! indeed i did. the question wasn't meant to be answered really. just to troll some tlsers

You "trolled" TLSers by taking the time to write out a stimulus, question, and 5 responses... on TLS. WTF mate.

The advice you've gotten is good. People on TLS didn't have some secret meeting where they decided to team up against you and give you bad advice. If you go to a school with a 4.0/160, you will either get into a once decent school, but today that has marginal job prospects to pay off the debt (T 30- 50 or so, but the closer to T30 the less chance of any $ at all), or a school on a nice scholarship (T-100 level) with AWFUL job prospects.

You're one of the top few percent in GPA. You probably worked pretty hard for that GPA--- as anyone with a 4.0 has. It's not worth settling- you can do better on the LSAT.

And don't troll TLS. If you are looking for advice, don't come into it with a preconceived notion of what that advice should be. That's not how advice works dude.

[dr123]

Enjoy American

[Clearly]

And don't troll TLS. If you are looking for advice, don't come into it with a preconceived notion of what that advice should be. That's not how advice works dude.

This is the best thing I've ever read.

[itachiuchiha]

I don't see how any of these answers are right from YOUR perspective. C comes the closest, but the stimulus didn't mention responders providing evidence, so that can't be the flaw.

Eta: actually "don't go to law school" is pretty relevant no matter which way you swing it. B can't be right because "don't go to law school" is considering the test taker can't score above 160. D can't be right because no one "assumes op should retake or don't go" in order to conclude "op should retake or don't go."
Oh I get it, you wrote a flawed question, not a flaw question.

indeed i did! indeed i did. the question wasn't meant to be answered really. just to troll some tlsers

You "trolled" TLSers by taking the time to write out a stimulus, question, and 5 responses... on TLS. WTF mate.

The advice you've gotten is good. People on TLS didn't have some secret meeting where they decided to team up against you and give you bad advice. If you go to a school with a 4.0/160, you will either get into a once decent school, but today that has marginal job prospects to pay off the debt (T 30- 50 or so, but the closer to T30 the less chance of any $ at all), or a school on a nice scholarship (T-100 level) with AWFUL job prospects.

You're one of the top few percent in GPA. You probably worked pretty hard for that GPA--- as anyone with a 4.0 has. It's not worth settling- you can do better on the LSAT.

And don't troll TLS. If you are looking for advice, don't come into it with a preconceived notion of what that advice should be. That's not how advice works dude.

Bad assumption. You thought I was talking about myself? I never took the LSAT

[Clearly]

I don't see how any of these answers are right from YOUR perspective. C comes the closest, but the stimulus didn't mention responders providing evidence, so that can't be the flaw.

Eta: actually "don't go to law school" is pretty relevant no matter which way you swing it. B can't be right because "don't go to law school" is considering the test taker can't score above 160. D can't be right because no one "assumes op should retake or don't go" in order to conclude "op should retake or don't go."
Oh I get it, you wrote a flawed question, not a flaw question.

indeed i did! indeed i did. the question wasn't meant to be answered really. just to troll some tlsers

You "trolled" TLSers by taking the time to write out a stimulus, question, and 5 responses... on TLS. WTF mate.

The advice you've gotten is good. People on TLS didn't have some secret meeting where they decided to team up against you and give you bad advice. If you go to a school with a 4.0/160, you will either get into a once decent school, but today that has marginal job prospects to pay off the debt (T 30- 50 or so, but the closer to T30 the less chance of any $ at all), or a school on a nice scholarship (T-100 level) with AWFUL job prospects.

You're one of the top few percent in GPA. You probably worked pretty hard for that GPA--- as anyone with a 4.0 has. It's not worth settling- you can do better on the LSAT.

And don't troll TLS. If you are looking for advice, don't come into it with a preconceived notion of what that advice should be. That's not how advice works dude.

Bad assumption. You thought I was talking about myself? I never took the LSAT

Yeah, never would have guessed.

[objection_your_honor]

There's no argument there. Just background info and a conclusion. We need at least one premise to spot a flaw.

[monadologist]

There's no flaw in the stimulus, and all the responses are flawed. Reading this question probably knocked 5 points off of my LR now, haha.