june 2007, logical reasoning 2, question 25
summary
the content focuses on tackling flaw questions in the lsat, specifically identifying and understanding the error in an argument's reasoning.
- flaw questions require recognizing the argument's conclusion and evidence, and how the evidence fails to prove the conclusion.
- the example provided illustrates a common flaw: confusing necessity with sufficiency in arguments.
- understanding the argument involves tracing back to its initial claim and examining the evidence presented against it.
- formal logic can help visualize the flaw by distinguishing between claims of necessity and sufficiency.
- the correct answer choice pinpoints the flaw as confusing sufficiency with necessity, while other options are dismissed for various reasons.
chapters
00:00
understanding flaw questions
00:33
identifying the argument and its flaw
01:01
dissecting the flaw: necessity vs. sufficiency
01:55
analyzing and choosing the correct answer
