Abstract language assistance needed (Flaw/method)

[willmcchez]

Hey all,

Can anyone point me in the direction of some study materials which deal with the abstract language used in Flaw and Method questions? I think I still get confused by the *really* abstract language in some of the more difficult problems. I'm reviewing December 2014 LR 1 right now and #18 is still causing me to go crosseyed. As humbling as it is to admit, I don't think I understand what the abstract language in the correct answer (A) is saying exactly:

"Fails to address the possibility that an observed correlation between two phenomena is due to another factor that causally contributes to both phenomena."

SOS.

[Adam Tyson]

You'll find that kind of language lots of places, willmcchez, including in the LR Bible in the chapters that deal with those question types and in our course materials. In addition, here is one discussion on the subject that you might want to look over:

https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/argume ... -questions

It's specifically about the Argument Part questions, but still has some relevant, helpful tips about dealing with that language and matching it to the details of the stimulus.

Generally speaking, it's that matching that can really help. In your example, in order to test that answer (assuming you had it as a contender in the first place), the first step would be to find "an observed correlation between two phenomena." Was there one? If not, then that answer is a loser; if so, keep going. Was the argument causal in the first place, making "due to" even a thing? If not, loser; if so, keep going. Did the author fail to consider some other factor, an alternate cause that could cause both things observed? That is, could there be something else at work, and did the author neglect to think about it? If so, then this answer is a winner; if not, if either there was no possible alternate cause, or else he did consider it, it's a loser, and time to look at another answer choice.

That "matching" process is a good way to work through abstract language on these questions, as well as on many parallel reasoning and principle questions. It's like going through a checklist. Give that a try, and see if it doesn't demystify those answers for you. Good luck!