LSAT Podcast Episode 29: Flaw in the Reasoning Questions Part IV: What To Do When No Obvious Form of Reasoning is Present?

Oct 3rd, 2019

In this fourth and final edition of their Flaw in the Reasoning coverage, Dave and Jon explore one of the LSAT's most nerve-wracking scenarios: correctly approaching Flaw questions where the error isn't common or clear. So how do you solve for flaws you can't identify? Tune in to find out!

Episode Timestamps:

0:00 – Intro. Jon is back from New York and not coincidentally drinking a Manhattan. Following the geographical theme but not because he’s ever been there, Dave is drinking a Moscow Mule. Our musical choice tonight is A Beautiful Lie from 30 Seconds to Mars, which ties into our theme of argument flaws.

3:49 - This week in the LSAT world. Jon and Dave discuss the upcoming score release date, as well as LSAC's latest blogs and podcast entries. Test takers seem to be trending down at this point, which is good for current applicants. At the same time, LSAC is planning on using timing data form their tests to “improve” the LSAT further, which is not something you should welcome as a test taker. Then again, the original LSAT was over 500 questions in length and took all day, so things have gotten a lot better over the years!  

Flaw in the Reasoning: No Obvious Flaw

18:05 – If you are just joining us, start with a review of our previous Flaw discussions (Part I, Part IIPart III), where we go into detail on many of the specific flaws that appear on the LSAT.

19:40 – Let’s talk about the “uh oh” moment: What to do when you read the stem, don’t see a flaw, but then get a Flaw question!

22:30 – Flaw questions are really just Abstract Must Be True questions. Instead of identifying the facts of the argument, you must identify the logical organization of the argument, and this is a key point to know when solving these questions.

24:11 – Remember the Fact Test from Must Be True questions? Well, it applies to Flaw questions as well, and we discuss how it works.

32:43 – Let’s talk about two common forms of unknown/unrecognizable Flaws: “The author fails to consider”; “The author presumed without justification”. They sound like they are the same, but they are actually asking for opposite things (which lends one to a very neat solution strategy).

46:23 – Outro