The Morbid Flaws
Some people have trouble with flaw questions on the LSAT because there are two ways the answer choices can be worded. One just points out the assumption by asking what the argument “takes for granted.” The other points out the assumption, too, but in a more indirect way; it tells you something the argument isn’t considering by making the assumption:
The argument fails to consider that…
Or
The argument ignores the possibility that…
When I teach flaw questions, there are a couple of morbid examples I like to use to illustrate the difference. So apologies in advance for being a Debbie Downer, but I like to think the morbidity of these makes them more memorable. Here they are, the Morbid Flaws.
1. The Delusion of Marriage Example
If I say, “Richard and I are getting married, so we are going to be together forever,” what am I assuming? That my marriage won’t fail. If this were the argument in a flaw question, the answer might be, “Mary takes for granted that her marriage won’t fail.” But the answer could also be worded differently. It could read, “Mary fails to consider the possibility that…” and then follow with any number of the many grim events that could prove my optimisim wrong. I’m failing to consider that I could get divorced, that my husband could cheat on me, that my spouse could die, or that I could move to a state or country that doesn’t recognize my marriage for some reason. (Told you… morbid.)
Both of these ways of answering the question hinge on the same idea: that assuming my marriage won’t end involves a number of blind spots. We can point out what’s in one of the blindspots, or we can call me out as blind. Either way, it’s the same idea.
2. The Plane Crash Example
Suppose I’m sitting next to you on a plane, and you’re nervous about flying. Offering the worst pep talk of all time, I say, “Come on. If the plane takes off safely, it will definitely land safely.” I’m assuming that the plane won’t crash. If (C) says, “Mary takes for granted that the plane won’t crash,” ding, ding! Choose it. But the answer choice could also note one of the possiblities I’m refusing to consider by assuming the plane won’t crash. If (E) reads, “Mary ignores the possibility that” and follows with, “the plane could run out of fuel,” “the plane could collide with low-flying birds,” or “the pilot could be exhausted,” it’s also right. I am ignoring these possibilities.
The different approach of the answer choices on flaw questions doesn’t have to be confusing. If you find yourself befuddled, step back and think of a morbid example of your own. For some reason, they’re the easiest ones to come up with (at least for me). Assume you won’t die before age 100. What possibilities are you ignoring? If you take for granted that you’ll never be homeless, what are you failing to consider that could happen? (I think one reason it’s easy to generate negative, hypothetical life-intruders is that we spend so much time worrying about them.)
It’s a good mental exercise if you find yourself re-reading flaw answer choices. Just be sure to listen to Madonna afterward.