Subscription pricing
I am just now getting into the habit of prephrasing and I'm not necessarily recognizing common flaws, not immediately anyway. I understand the common flaw listed included in the curriculum may not be exhaustive. There are still questions that I'm not able to prephrase at all. I know some people say prephrase on all question types but The LSAT Trainer says not on all. Is it more advantageous to memorize the common flaws or just be able to recognize the flaw? I ask about it being more advantageous because of answer choices for MOR or flaw/descriptive weakening questions? Obviously memorizing would be more advantageous for those question types but what about overall? I'm sure I'll be able to recognize them with continued studying but I'm wondering if I need to squeeze in flash cards for them or something?
1
4 comments
Cool cool! You guys both hit on what I was asking. @jhaldy10325 @gregoryalexanderdevine723
I think it's really great to memorize common flaws just to have that in your tool kit. You also need to be able to analyze a flawed argument and know what's wrong with it. It may take a little longer but it's an essential skill. They know which one's we memorize and when they go to design a curve breaker flaw question, they will frequently look outside the regulars.
Both - if I understand what you are asking correctly.
I read The LSAT Trainer which helped me recognize flaws in general (A piece ≠ the puzzle, 1+1 ≠ 3, Apples ≠ Oranges) If you aren't familiar check it out The LSAT Trainer by Mike Kim.
This helped me see the forrest, if you will.
Then I made sure to commit to memory the 19 common flaws J.Y. lists in the flaws lesson. Memorizing them was worth it.
This helped me see the trees...
Understanding both of these really helped me with pre-phrasing and getting better at flaw questions in general. The LSAT Trainer because of its more general approach to flaws helps when you can't articulate just what type of flaw it is.
Hope this helps! :D
Bumping so more people can see!