Flaw Questions

[Legalistic]

Hello,

After doing a couple LR sections, I notice that I keep getting Flaw questions wrong. After I read the explanation for each correct and incorrect answer, I sometimes find the explanation merely saying "yes, that's a flaw but that's not a flaw for this stimulus" I find that quite confusing. Although I understand that it can be a flaw, but not the flaw represented in the stimulus. How do I know if a flaw is the applicable flaw with all the answer choices touching upon possible flaws in the stimulus? I find myself having a hard time processing the difficult language in the answer choices. Sometimes, I notice that I made illegitimate connections with the stimulus and the answer choices because I guess I'm trying to find the "correct" answer. I review the flaws everyday to make sure I'm on top of the game but I think it might be the difficult wording in the answer choices and the possible but not applicable flaws that are messing me up.

Do you think it's a good method to use a weakening approach to some flaw questions? For example, PT 6, S3, Q20.

Conclusion: Hence, psychotherapy cannot possibly be a form of coercion.
P1:Psychotherapy has been described as a form of moral coercion.
P2: When people are coerced, their ability to make choices is restricted
P3: the goal of psychotherapy is to enhance people's ability to make choices.

The way I attacked this question: I initially thought of the weakening approach, which I will explain below (but I usually stray away from this because I think it may take into account things not may not necessarily be in the scope of the argument). Then, I used the regular identify the flaw with the answer choices. I chose D because I confused the goals of psychotherapy (to enhance people's ability to make choices) with the conclusion (psychotherapy cannot possibly be a form of coercion). So, the goals of psychotherapy (psychotherapy cannot possibly be a form of coercion) are taken to justify any means that are used (enhance people's ability to make choices) to achieve those goals. I obviously need to be more careful with identifying the conclusion and premises.

Is this weakening approach good?

What I need to do? Identify the flaw
What is the flaw here? The conclusion states that psychotherapy cannot possibly be a form of coercion. Well, what if it could be a form of coercion? Then that would weaken the argument and be the flaw. The goal is still the same - to enhance people's ability to make choices so the actual practice of psychotherapy is running counter to its goals and resulting in a form of coercion. Hence, making C correct.

Also, can someone please explain why the rest of the answer choices are wrong in PT 6, S3, Q20.

Thanks in advance!

[Claire Horan]

Hi Legalistic,

I see your confusion.  Remember that a correct answer to a flaw in the reasoning question both:
1) correctly describes what is actually happening in the specific stimulus AND
2) describes reasoning that is actually flawed.

Incorrect answers often describe flaws that are not present in the stimulus or describe reasoning that is present in the stimulus but is not flawed.  For example, a stimulus may contain an inappropriate appeal to authority.  If an answer choice states that the stimulus uses circular reasoning, that answer choice is incorrect because it names a flaw that is not present in the stimulus.  The correct answer choice will describe (probably in different words) an improper appeal to authority.  However, some appeals to authority are appropriate--and if the appeal to authority is appropriate in that particular stimulus, that will be the wrong answer. 

It sounds like you are letting the answer choices control you.  Instead, you need to prephrase by identifying the flaw in the reasoning of the stimulus BEFORE you look at the answer choices so that incorrect answer choices don't distract you from what you are looking for.  

You should absolutely not try to use the weakening approach to solve flaw in the reasoning questions.  Weaken questions ask you to identify the answer choice that, if true, would weaken the argument in the stimulus.  Flaw in the reasoning questions, by contrast, ask you to identify the flaw that is present in the stimulus.  Powerscore techniques work only for the question types they are designed to address, so it is very important that you can identify the question type and only apply the techniques for that particular question type.  Mixing them up is a recipe for disaster (and needless complication). Furthermore, If you remember back to Lesson 1 and the diagrams showing the four question families, a flaw in the reasoning question is part of the same family as must be trues, with an arrow pointing from the stimulus to the answer choices. That means you can use deductive reasoning and prephrase the answer before considering the choices. The weaken family, on the other hand, has an arrow pointing from the answer choices to the stimulus because you take the answer choices as true and apply them to the stimulus. So please don't confuse yourself by trying to combine these question types!

This discussion also relates to your difficulties solving October 1992 LR2 Section III Prep Test #6, Question 20. It sounds like you are asking yourself which answer choice COULD be a flaw. And all of the answer choices could be a flaw if they accurately described what was happening in the stimulus (which is why you are having trouble distinguishing between the answer choices). But flaw in the reasoning questions are not asking you to identify what could be a flaw. They are asking you to identify the actual flaw that is present in the stimulus. And if you take the time to think about what's wrong with the stimulus, you'll see that the argument conflates the purpose of psychotherapy with its effects. A prephrase similar to that will lead you to the right answer.

Thanks for the great question, and good luck!