My Flaw Game is Weak and Would Appreciate your Advice

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
Post Reply
imbreakinglsatbread

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:26 am

My Flaw Game is Weak and Would Appreciate your Advice

Post by imbreakinglsatbread » Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:12 am

I have major foundational issues in LR I want to address. Actually I have major foundational issues in all of it but I need to start somewhere.

Do you agree with, or like/dislike the approach of identifying flaws first and working the question from there, as the LSAT Trainer teaches? I feel like its solid for most argumentative question types but I am not very good at it at all. To be clear, I'm not speaking about flaw specific questions, but the flaws that are inherent in most of these LR arguments.

Im averaging 145 through 8 pretests. I blind review them all fully, I put about 12-15 hours into each test in review. Since I was blind reviewing the entire test, I didn't circle questions I was unsure of. I finally circled these questions in the very last section of my very last prep test. I had circled 19 out of 25. So, now I'm here feeling I don't need to be doing prep tests right now. I don't think I have built a proper foundation to benefit from blind review.

I used 7sage analytics and input my scores. All the question types I have answered were red. I exhibit not a single strength in logic reasoning. So I need to start over.

I don't seek the specials secrets or a quick fix. I'm ready to do it the old fashion way. I want to develop this skill and I am willing to put in the time and effort. With so many questions containing flaws, it seems to be where I should focus my efforts.

Please help me become a flaw master. What do I do? I feel I know all of the major flaws and fallacies but have difficulty extracting them under a running clock. I will return to all of the argumentative questions from the PT's I have taken and find each and every flaw and how that flaw may interact or not interact in each question and answer choice?

I'm hoping through 8 PT's of this, I can improve at flaws at least a little and continue to improve as I go.

Thanks for reading and any help.

IntellectualMode

New
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:16 am

Re: My Flaw Game is Weak and Would Appreciate your Advice

Post by IntellectualMode » Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:09 am

Alright fella, I figure I'll try and offer you some advice to help you out.

To begin with, I'm not sure if identifying the flaws in each stimulus is necessary
to correctly answering all question types - I don't particularly like this approach as a foundation.
My reasoning for this is based on the fact that there can be questions which feature wholly 100% true stimuli, trying to identify a flaw here is a time-waster.

As opposed to taking a flaw-centric approach, first I'd recommend taking a look at the question before you look at the stimulus, so you have an idea as to what you're looking for.

(Some common question types where flaws may be prevalent include -
Flaw, Parallel Flaw, Parallel Reasoning, Strengthen, Weaken and both types of Assumption question.)

NB - TLS can be very contentious about this point on how to approach a question, but this is what works
for me, maybe it'll work for you.

When you start reading the stimulus, consider how the premises link with one another, along with any sub-conclusions and the main conclusion. Comprehension of the whole argument and what it is trying to convince you of is something that will greatly help you, across all question types, especially in pre-phrasing correct answers.

With the actual flaws themselves and their prevalence in questions, this links back to my point on comprehension.

See where a flaw is prevalent in an argument, you can guarantee it is something that means that the main conclusion of the argument does not follow 100% of the time.
If you can comprehend what the argument is trying to convince you of and what evidence it gives in favour of its' main conclusion, you should be able to identify what the prevailing flaw is - it's going to be the reason why the conclusion doesn't follow 100% of the time.

Logical fallacies come in many different flavours, some of which aren't as well documented on, but try the approach I've recommended and see how you feel.

Oh and a final point or two on timing - you first have to walk before you can run. Go through LR sections / questions slowly at first, and make sure you understand what you're on about. Then you can start going and doing it timed and analysing your performance.

Best of Luck.

Post Reply

Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”