How to Improve on LR: An Overview from a 177 scorer (Part II: Flaw Theory)

Hey all,

It's been a minute!

Some info about me: I have taught the LSAT for almost five years now after completely self studying to a first-attempt 177 score. For a few years I was an active poster in this community offering free advice and resources, but I took a break from posting as a result of attending Yale Law School. Feel free to look at my post history for other guides on logical reasoning and reading comprehension!

Lately, I have noticed a number of threads across social media about flaw questions and what makes them tick. This guide is dedicated to anyone wrestling with this important (and extremely common) question type.

There are two main buckets to consider when improving your flaw question accuracy: 1) did you identify the flaw when analyzing the argument at first glance AND 2) were you prepared for how the correct answer worded the underlying flaw in the argument?

Here are the steps for tackling any flaw question:

Step One: Identify the Main Conclusion

Step Two: Identify the Premise(s)

Step Three: Identify the Assumption - what is the logical jump being made by the author as they move from the premises to the conclusion?

When it comes to flaw questions, your task is descriptive in nature - your correct answer will give an account for why the argument is flawed. Consider the following sample argument:

Premise: Mayor Smith takes significant campaign contributions from the widget factory.

Conclusion: Thus, we must reject Smith's claims that the widget factory deserves a tax break.

Eagle-eyed readers may have noticed that this is a classic ad hominem flaw: attacking someone's character or motivations instead of their actual reasoning.

So classic in fact, that if the LSAT was being nice, the correct answer would merely read some version of "[the argument] undermines the mayor's credibility instead of addressing his recommendation."

That is one common way that flaw questions will word their correct answer...by describing the category of flaw that the argument committed. But it's not the only way!

Remember that an argument is flawed because it has made some kind of jump between the premises and the conclusion. So the flaw of an argument is directly linked to some kind of underlying assumption! Therefore, every correct answer on a flaw question will take one of three main forms: state the flaw, the assumption, or the inverse of the assumption.

Here, this would look like:

1) State the Flaw: [The argument] undermines the mayor's credibility instead of addressing his recommendation.

2) Assumption: The argument takes for granted/presumes without providing justification that taking political contributions would definitely bias the Mayor's tax break proposal.

3) Inverse of Assumption: The argument fails to consider/ignores the possibility of the political contributions not biasing the mayor's tax break proposal.

The point here is that the correct answer on a flaw question will be in one of the three categories outlined above. Any of the three examples listed could have been the correct answer for this sample argument! Knowing the different kinds of flaws is only half the battle; you must also be prepared for the three main ways that the LSAT can describe ANY flaw.

There are some other more nuanced points about flaw questions I can share in another post if folks are interested. I just wanted to put out this theoretical framework for solving any flaw question as it has helped quite a few of my students over my thousands of tutoring hours.

Please post below with any questions you have about this strategy/theory - always happy to help!