LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 angie23
  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: Nov 17, 2013
|
#14445
This is what I understand thus far:

premise: -mythical half-horse, half-human were frequently portrayed as violent and savage
-many human cultures use myth to express unconscious thoughts

conclusion: mythical creatures reflect people's unconscious fear of the horse

What I do not understand is why A) is the correct answer and not D). Also, I seem to have trouble with flaw questions that do not fall into the categories listed in lesson 7. Do anyone have any tips about how to attack those types of flaw questions?
 David Boyle
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 836
  • Joined: Jun 07, 2013
|
#14452
angie23 wrote:This is what I understand thus far:

premise: -mythical half-horse, half-human were frequently portrayed as violent and savage
-many human cultures use myth to express unconscious thoughts

conclusion: mythical creatures reflect people's unconscious fear of the horse

What I do not understand is why A) is the correct answer and not D). Also, I seem to have trouble with flaw questions that do not fall into the categories listed in lesson 7. Do anyone have any tips about how to attack those types of flaw questions?
Hello angie23,

Answer D is not helpful, because how does it make a difference if, say, the Greeks thought of it first, then the Romans borrowed it because they, too, fear horses subconsciously?
Answer A is the best choice, because it makes the needed link. The unstated assumption is that the creature actually represents the horse in people's minds. What if, for some funny reason, the creature actually represents other human beings, and our subconscious fear of other human beings? (Unlikely-sounding, but you never know...)

As for "miscellaneous flaw" questions that don't seem to fall into any particular category: first make sure that they really don't! Something that seems unidentifiable may actually turn out to be circular reasoning, say, or the ever-popular and highly general "lack of any relevant evidence".
If they really don't fall in any category, just try to figure out, by paraphrase, analogy, or what-have-you, what a common-sense description of the flaw would be. Then just try to find the answer choice that matches your generalized description of the flaw as closely as possible.

Hope that helps,
David

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.