how to heck do y'all do Flaws and MSS/MBT questions? Forum

[cavalier2015]

so i've realized my biggest weakness in LR is with Flaws, MSS and MBT questions. I made an extensive outline (that i've actually posted on here) of all the flaws that are commonly tested on the LSAT. my problem is that i am usually able to roughly describe the flaw but when i get to the answer choices i just simply fail. i cannot translate the flaw into the context of the problem. i get really caught up in the flaw qs that have ACs that are contextual rather than ACs that simply define a flaw. as for MSS/MBT, I usually get lost in the stimulus and can't pick out whats important. is the entire stimulus important for these or are there certain things that are advisable to pick up on? i feel on these questions, i am just spending a lot of time looking at the ACs and seeing if its mentioned anywhere in the stimulus and then taking more time understanding if its a reference that could be made or not.

any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Skool]

so i've realized my biggest weakness in LR is with Flaws, MSS and MBT questions. I made an extensive outline (that i've actually posted on here) of all the flaws that are commonly tested on the LSAT. my problem is that i am usually able to roughly describe the flaw but when i get to the answer choices i just simply fail. i cannot translate the flaw into the context of the problem. i get really caught up in the flaw qs that have ACs that are contextual rather than ACs that simply define a flaw. as for MSS/MBT, I usually get lost in the stimulus and can't pick out whats important. is the entire stimulus important for these or are there certain things that are advisable to pick up on? i feel on these questions, i am just spending a lot of time looking at the ACs and seeing if its mentioned anywhere in the stimulus and then taking more time understanding if its a reference that could be made or not.

any help would be greatly appreciated.

Yeah, the context doesn't matter you have to see the essence. If you can identify the flaw in the stimulus, you should probably be able to see the flaw in the nonsense answer choice context.

Once you realize you're looking for an answer choice sharing the stimulus's flaw, a neat trick is to say "the correct answer choice is a bad argument. Now I must eliminate those answer choices that are good arguments." This should help eliminate one or two possible answers.

After that you've got to be able to find your ugly baby. In the stimulus, you've got to be able to zero in on what's fucked up. Maybe you could try flash cards of LSAT Flawed reasoning stimuli and write their flaw on the back of the card (argument from authority, generalization based on cherry picking, etc.) and then just drill on identifying these. This process wouldn't be that different mentally than what you're doing on the actual test. You're doing a small amount of analysis. Really, you're just tapping in to your bank of knowledge about fallacies pulling up a name, and then attaching it to the stimulus. Then you're reading the answer choices and looking for the same name.

[cavalier2015]

thanks. do you think even for the upper-level flaw questions the premises are generally 1sentence/idea that leads to the conclusion or is it 2 premises that i have to put together AND then see how they play into the conclusion?

i ask that because i see that i can break down upper level flaw questions as a simple conclusion and a simple premise, but i am unsure if i should be doing this.

[Skool]

Hmm... I'm not sure I know the answer to that.

I don't quite see the significance of saying "i can break down upper level flaw questions as a simple conclusion and a simple premise." That's helpful in knowing what the speaker is claiming and what evidence he cites (which is essential), but it doesn't tell you why his reasoning is fucked (which is why they give you points).

I would think that in order to be a flaw question, it would have to have clearly identifiable premises and a conclusion (because the whole point is to identify the shitty relationship between the two). What is being claimed shouldn't be a mystery or require too much analysis or time (whether there are two premises and a conclusion or one premises and a conclusion). The trick is to identify the shitty relationship between premises and conclusions.

I suppose that shitty relationship could be two premises and two conclusions or one premises and two conclusions, but none of this should really matter. All that matters is the fallacious movement between premises and conclusions, no matter how many there are.

If you've got dollars to burn, I would totally recommend buying into Testmasters's site. Their database of flawed reasoning materials is pretty much the only thing they offered me that I found useful. I just used their stuff to make flashcards and practice identifying fallacies and selecting the right parallel flaw in answer choices and it was a really effective method.

Maybe an analogy is watching recordings of ballets and you want to learn what certain moves are called and how to recognize when two performers are doing certain shitty moves. It doesn't matter if there are two performers or five, if they're doing their doing all the steps to "shitty movement x", it doesn't matter if they're wearing sequins or if there are five of them, they're still doing "shitty movement x" and the trick is to zero in on the movements between the parts, not what the parts are wearing.

[KDLMaj]

To the original point:

1) Start studying the flaw answers. You made a list of flaws- great. But do you have a list of commonly worded answer choices that match up with each one? The LSAT re-uses those answers again and again. Knowing which buzz words to look for really helps.

2) Flaws get you with vague answer choices. They love things like "Assumes that because one thing could cause another that thing must have been the cause". When you read a flaw answer choices, match up EVERY vague word (thing, other thing, effect, group, etc) with a specific from the stim. Then read the answer again- if it's not describing your stim flawlessly, it's wrong. If you leave the words in the answers vague, you're going to get your behind handed to you again and again

3) Challenging Flaw Qs at the end of the section tend to REALLY screw with verbiage. If it's a causal question, 4 answer choices might say "causes", and the fifth one that doesn't will be correct. Don't jump the gun. Read a choice all the way through, follow step 2 above, and don't be sloppy. If you know it's representation arg and the jump at the first answer with the word 'representation' in it, you're going to end up missing it. (on the flip side though, for easier flaws at the beginning, if it's a rep arg and you see the word "representative" in the answers, it's probably right)

[cavalier2015]

thanks. could you expand a bit on point 3 about harder questions using verbiage? maybe an example from a PT so I know what to look for

[KDLMaj]

thanks. could you expand a bit on point 3 about harder questions using verbiage? maybe an example from a PT so I know what to look for

Here are some scrubbed examples: (obviously I can't quote actual LSAT material)

Imagine an argument that assumes one member of a boy band represents the state of everyone else in the band. If you go into a flaw answer set with a vague notion of that and rush through, you can get in a lot of trouble. A tough flaw question might have answers like this:


Generalizes from the fact that most members of a Boy Band have a certain property to constitute evidence that all members of that band have that property.
Mistakes a property of each member of a boy band taken as an individual for a property of the boy band taken as a representative whole.
The argument shifts from applying a characteristic to a few members of a Boy Band to applying the characteristic to all members of that band

The first answer choice says "generalizes" (classic rep arg answer wording), but it's actually a really bastardized version of nec vs suff (they love to do that too)
The second answer talks about representative whole (also classic rep arg answer wording), but it's a parts to whole fallacy (NOT the same)
The third one doesn't have any mention of generalization, representation, etc. but it's actually a representation answer choice.


An easier version of this question might instead give you:
Confuses a result about boy bands with something that is sufficient for bringing about that result.
Assuming that because something is true of each of the parts of a boy band it is true of the boy band itself.
Justifies a generalization about a boy band on the basis of a single member.

Same argument and same argument types being referenced in the answer choices. But a VERY different experience. The first answer is obviously nec vs suff, and the second is obviously parts/whole. And the one that uses the word generalizes IS the representation answer choice.

That make sense?

[Adrian Monk]

thanks. could you expand a bit on point 3 about harder questions using verbiage? maybe an example from a PT so I know what to look for

Here are some scrubbed examples: (obviously I can't quote actual LSAT material)

Imagine an argument that assumes one member of a boy band represents the state of everyone else in the band. If you go into a flaw answer set with a vague notion of that and rush through, you can get in a lot of trouble. A tough flaw question might have answers like this:


Generalizes from the fact that most members of a Boy Band have a certain property to constitute evidence that all members of that band have that property.
Mistakes a property of each member of a boy band taken as an individual for a property of the boy band taken as a representative whole.
The argument shifts from applying a characteristic to a few members of a Boy Band to applying the characteristic to all members of that band

The first answer choice says "generalizes" (classic rep arg answer wording), but it's actually a really bastardized version of nec vs suff (they love to do that too)
The second answer talks about representative whole (also classic rep arg answer wording), but it's a parts to whole fallacy (NOT the same)
The third one doesn't have any mention of generalization, representation, etc. but it's actually a representation answer choice.


An easier version of this question might instead give you:
Confuses a result about boy bands with something that is sufficient for bringing about that result.
Assuming that because something is true of each of the parts of a boy band it is true of the boy band itself.
Justifies a generalization about a boy band on the basis of a single member.

Same argument and same argument types being referenced in the answer choices. But a VERY different experience. The first answer is obviously nec vs suff, and the second is obviously parts/whole. And the one that uses the word generalizes IS the representation answer choice.

That make sense?

wait, why is the second one wrong, the "Mistakes a property of each member of a boy band taken as an individual for a property of the boy band taken as a representative whole.":

[KDLMaj]

thanks. could you expand a bit on point 3 about harder questions using verbiage? maybe an example from a PT so I know what to look for

Here are some scrubbed examples: (obviously I can't quote actual LSAT material)

Imagine an argument that assumes one member of a boy band represents the state of everyone else in the band. If you go into a flaw answer set with a vague notion of that and rush through, you can get in a lot of trouble. A tough flaw question might have answers like this:


Generalizes from the fact that most members of a Boy Band have a certain property to constitute evidence that all members of that band have that property.
Mistakes a property of each member of a boy band taken as an individual for a property of the boy band taken as a representative whole.
The argument shifts from applying a characteristic to a few members of a Boy Band to applying the characteristic to all members of that band

The first answer choice says "generalizes" (classic rep arg answer wording), but it's actually a really bastardized version of nec vs suff (they love to do that too)
The second answer talks about representative whole (also classic rep arg answer wording), but it's a parts to whole fallacy (NOT the same)
The third one doesn't have any mention of generalization, representation, etc. but it's actually a representation answer choice.


An easier version of this question might instead give you:
Confuses a result about boy bands with something that is sufficient for bringing about that result.
Assuming that because something is true of each of the parts of a boy band it is true of the boy band itself.
Justifies a generalization about a boy band on the basis of a single member.

Same argument and same argument types being referenced in the answer choices. But a VERY different experience. The first answer is obviously nec vs suff, and the second is obviously parts/whole. And the one that uses the word generalizes IS the representation answer choice.

That make sense?

wait, why is the second one wrong, the "Mistakes a property of each member of a boy band taken as an individual for a property of the boy band taken as a representative whole.":

Yeah, parts to whole and representation wording are insanely hard to differentiate. The assumption I gave you was that what was going on with one member of the band represented every other member of the band. The answer choice in question is saying that a quality of one member of the boy band represents the boy band entity itself. It's the difference between saying:

Johnny in the Boy Band loves potatoes, and so everyone in the band must love potatoes

and saying

Johnny in the Boy Band is well-known, so the band itself must be well-known.

Make sense?