.jpg)
This is a continuation of the Simple Guide on Flaw Questions. Please familiarize yourself with the concepts discussed there before moving on. This guide is dedicated to identifying the traits found in the most difficult flaw questions and the strategies to solve them.
Table of Contents:
What is a flaw question? Flaw questions assess your capacity to The most difficult flaw questions will sometimes leave us unsure of why the argument is bad. When the argument appears valid, our first step is to compare the wording of the premises (or intermediate conclusion) with the wording of the main conclusion. There are frequently small shifts in the logic(1), strength(2), scope(3), or ideas(4).* These shifts can sometimes be unstated in more difficult questions and will instead be an assumption.
*Example Questions
1. PT 158 S2 Q14
2. PT 150 S3 Q24
3. PT 117 S4 Q22
4. PT 131 S2 Q15
Presumably, you are familiar with the 14 common flaws discussed here and can quickly recognize them. If not, the first step when you are confused with the apparent validity of an argument would be to consider the most common flaws. The vast majority of flaw questions do not involve the “most difficult” traits being discussed.
Another common trait of the most difficult flaw questions involves vague wording of answer choices. For example, there are many ways the writers like to say “confuses necessary and sufficient,” such as “Takes for granted that an assumption required to establish the argument’s conclusion is sufficient to establish that conclusion.”
*Students commonly ask if there is any difference between “mistaking the sufficient condition for the necessary” and “mistaking the necessary condition for the sufficient.” There is no difference.
Many answer choices will be worded vaguely and require you to plug the concepts in the stimulus back in to test them. Take the following answer choice: “presupposing that if a certain property distinguishes one type of action from another type of action, then that property is one of many properties distinguishing the two types of action.”
There are a bunch of variables here that one needs to cross-reference to the stimulus to plug back in to test the answer choice. You have discretion in which concepts you plug in to make the flaw “fit.” By discretion, I mean that:
Examples of questions like this:
1. PT 122 S2 Q18
2. PT 103 S2 Q15
Test writers will include tricks on the most difficult flaw questions involving causal and/or conditional logic. Below are some examples.
Unfortunately, under time pressure, we will sometimes be left thinking there are multiple flaws in the stimulus. When this is the case, we need to be diligent in our answer choice analysis. The most difficult questions may have multiple answer choices that seem to harm the conclusion.
Ask yourself the following:
There is no strategy unique to flaw questions for breaking down abstract/confusing stimuli (e.g., PT 131 S1 Q15). A wordy, confusing stimulus will make every question type more difficult. Unfortunately, there is no “quick tip” for this; this subject alone would require another guide. If you find these questions particularly problematic, a starting point to improve would involve heavy repetition and continuously looking up unknown words.
The simple guide is sufficient for the vast majority of flaw questions. Be efficient; allocate your studying time according to what will raise your score the most. Please utilize our accuracy and timing data! There are many more Level 1-3 questions per exam than Level 4-5. If you consistently miss multiple Level 1-3 questions per LR section, the score improvement: hours studying ratio may mean your time is better spent by perfecting easier questions first. Flaw questions have a lot of different variables that can trip one up, so diligence with a wrong answer journal is particularly useful. When you fail to identify/prephrase the flaw in a timely manner from the stimulus, I recommend flagging the question for later review, regardless of whether you got it correct.
