Top Law Schools

Hello to all,

Thanks in advance.

I recall when I took the blue print a while back, they told us about "nine basic flaws" that would be on the LSAT. After taking it, I realize and think they're were more than just the "nine" they gave us. My question is what is the list of types of flaw's I should have memorized? (For instance, Ad hominem attack) Or should I even memorize them?

Should I just read the stimulus, then the question? or question first?

Also, how close to these types of flaws are on the LSAT? I just would like to have the list of flaw types and examples. I feel there are more than 9 types that will be tested on, also, on the test, is the LSAT very close in reasoning to those types?

Any help would be appreciated, I hope all is well, and good luck! I'm rooting for yah!

Post removed...

The good news is you don't need to memorize anyone's categories.
The bad news is you need to categorize them yourself.

Knowing the different flaws and what they are can be a good thing. But one prep book (I believe the LSAT Trainer) put it in a way that makes a lot more sense: Don't focus on learning a bunch of different types of flaws. A bunch of prep companies will do this, and it can be somewhat useful, but it can take away from what you're actually supposed to be doing.

If you're reading an argument and just trying to categorize that argument's flaw(s) into one of several different categories, you aren't necessarily doing what the test is asking of you. What you have to do is understand the argument. A conclusion is being made, and reasons for that conclusion are given. Those reasons are not going to allow you to definitively conclude what the author is trying to conclude. Your job is to understand why. Why does that evidence/support/reasoning not give us enough to conclude what the author is concluding? Simply applying several different categories of flaws to a question is going to be difficult sometimes, because not all answers are going to be in that sort of generic language all of the time. And as far as doing well on the test, it's going to require you to be good at reading a stimulus, finding the support and conclusion, and analyzing/judging the link between them. Understand WHY the argument is flawed, don't just try to apply a category to it.

How do you memorize flaws? Like off a list of flaw names or something and try to apply each to a question? Come on LSAT is a multiple choice test, meaning that the credited answer is already given. Even if you want the trial and error method, which I advise against, its much better to try 5 than 9 or 15 from shaky, nerve-impacted memory.

They categorize just to make you easier to understand. And to make themselves look systematic and professional.