Hi, NeverMissing,
Thank you for the thoughtful question! While I commend your close reading of the stimulus, as an instructor I would like to caution you that you might be parsing these stimuli too nicely and introducing assumptions or suppositions that will hinder your understanding of the questions.
From time to time, I return to the LSAT section Directions for LR, specifically:
- You should not make assumptions that are by commonsense standards implausible, superfluous, or incompatible with the passage.
To wit, the idea that a chairperson may not be a member of a party of which she is the chair is conceivable, though almost paradoxical. However, it certainly would seem "
by commonsense standards implausible" and thus outside the scope of the LSAT and not a flaw in and of itself. Thus, this particular issue is not germane for our understanding of this question.
Your general question is also excellent and certainly something that we encounter periodically on the LSAT, that is, stimuli that contain errors in reasoning for which the question does not concern these errors of reasoning. For instance, you might encounter a Method of Reasoning question that asks which role a certain statement plays. The overall argument might include a glaring flaw, but the statement itself may not be related to this flaw. If this is the case, the flaw is not significant and you can safely ignore it.
However, the LSAT sometimes will indirectly test whether you noticed a flaw on such questions. For instance, a question may ask which of the following roles a statement plays. If the statement is a premise in a flawed argument, the credited response may be something akin to the following: "The statement is an example of a situation that is purportedly analogous to a different situation."
Herein we notice an allusion to a flaw that is not itself the subject of the question.
In other circumstances, such as strengthen and weaken stimuli, multiple flaws may be present and some of these may have nothing to do with the credited response. The presence of multiple flaws on these questions adds to their difficulty. Students must perceive that to answer such questions correctly, they must realize that the correct answer may not address the most glaring flaw, but perhaps a flaw that seems minor by comparison.
Finally, if a stimuli contains a flawed argument but the question task has nothing whatsoever to do with this flaw, as in a Must Be True situation, then the flaw is immaterial and little more than a distraction.
I hope this helps!
