Flaw LR questions

[estellaW580]

Hi all, I have a special weak spot for Flaw questions .... in the LR section.
The problem is NOT that I don't identify the flaws....
It is really I don't identify the answer choices correctly......
I seem to find it hard to decipher how each answer choices specifically applies in the situation, therefore miss the question even though I perfectly understood the flaw. Is there a way to help this?

for example. when the answer states... this is a generalization to my mind ... though a stretch it could be called a generalization I guess?
or hypothesis.. because the lsat is confusing in that someitmes i feel like its definition of certain words are very broad.. however at times... it tells you no, thats not the case. its not like there is a dictionary for LSAT terms.... the strictly defines... where hypothesis applies, where example applies or where generalization applies......

[ohthatpatrick]

It's natural for the answer choices with abstract language to bother people. It's way harder to work our way through what those are saying.

There are words like generalization / claim / hypothesis / inference / analogy / example / principle, etc. that can be frustratingly vague.

A lot of them have fuzzy definitions

claim: a sentence
hypothesis: a theory about one thing having a causal influence on another
principle: a rule, usually expressed in normative language (should / ought)
generalization: broader than just one person or just one instance


And of course, the famous flaws are usually described with abstract wording, so you should know how the 10 famous flaws typically sound.

Famous Flaws
Conditional Logic Flaw (alias: Necessary vs. Sufficient)
- If you’re an NFL player, you’re wealthy. Bob is wealthy. So, Bob is an NFL player.
treats a condition that guarantees a certain trait as though that condition is required in order for that trait to obtain.


Part vs. Whole
- This car is the most expensive in its class. Thus, its floormats must be the most expensive floormats in its class.
takes for granted if a property is true of an entire object then that property is also true of each component of the object.


Unproven vs. Untrue (aliases: Failure to Prove, Absence of Evidence)
- No one has proven that cell phones cause cancer. Thus, cell phones do not cause cancer.
confuses a failure to prove a certain claim with proof of that claim’s falsity.

Sampling Flaw (aliases: generalizes from a potentially atypical sample / assumes representative sample)
- We asked members of the Student Govt whether this school gives students ample opportunities to lead …
Generalizes from a potentially unrepresentative sample.


Ad Hominem (Attacks Person, not argument, based on Person’s character, past behavior or vested interest)
- The President says that we should save water, but SHE has a private pool. Thus we shouldn’t save water.
addresses the source of the argument rather than its content


Correlation vs. Causality
- People who play basketball tend to be taller than average. Thus playing basketball must make you taller.
infers, on the basis of an association between two factors, a causal relationship



Equivocation (aliases: uses the term “responsible” in two different ways)
- Tony can’t be responsible for the crime. After all, his parents think that he’s pretty irresponsible.
equivocates in regards to a central concept


Circular Reasoning (assumes what it sets out to prove / conclusion restates the premise)
- Golf is obviously the most exciting sport, since all other sports are less enthralling than golf.
the purported evidence presupposes the truth of the conclusion


Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
- Has social media become a big part of the modern locker room environment? According to retired athletes, no.
relies on the testimonial of an authority whose expertise has not been sufficiently demonstrated

Internal Contradiction (aliases: relies on claims that cannot all be true / are inconsistent with each other)
- Unpaid internships are the best way to make money.
relies on claims that contradict each other



Finally, you need to be comfortable adapting to the different types of Flaw answer choices.


Answer Choices have 4 forms:
1. Call out a Necessary Assumptions
2. Make a Potential Objection
3. Describe the author’s Argument Core
4. Name a Famous Flaw

Example:
Cats are friendlier than dogs. Thus, cats make for the best pets.

#1. Call out Necessary Assumptions
- presumes, without providing justification, that friendliness is the primary consideration in ranking pets
- assumes without warrant that a friendlier pet is a better pet
- neglects to specify that the best pet is the friendliest one
- takes for granted no other type of pet besides cats is also friendlier than dogs

#2. Make Potential Objections
- fails to consider that other pets may be even friendlier than cats
- neglects the possibility that qualities other than friendliness factor into ranking pets
- fails to address the possibility that even if a certain type of animal is friendlier than another, that first type may have
other qualities that make it an inferior choice for a pet

#3. Describe the Argument Core
- infers a claim about all pets on the basis of evidence concerning only two pets
- takes for granted that a pet is superior to all others simply because it is superior on at least one level to one
other pet
- concludes, on the basis of friendliness, that a certain type of animal has overall superiority in a separate judgment.


When evaluating a Flaw answer choice, you can’t go wrong by asking yourself these two questions:
1. Did the author do this? (most answer choices can be eliminated because they just aren’t true)
2. Is this a reasoning problem? i.e. Does it speak to the questionable move from Evidence to Conclusion?

If you can handle the complexity, you should also switch up the question you’re asking yourself based on what type of
Flaw answer choice it is.
#1. Call Out a Necessary Assumption “Did the author really need to assume this? Is this too extreme sounding?”
#2. Make a Potential Objection “If true, would this weaken? Does this accept the evidence but go AGAINST the conclusion?”
#3. Describe the Argument Core “Can I match half of this to the premise and the other half to the conclusion/assumption?”
#4. Famous Flaw “Really? Most Famous Flaw answers are wrong. Did this argument really do this?”