If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

Main content

Course: LSAT > Unit 1

Lesson 6: Logical Reasoning – Articles
Test prep
LSAT
Lessons
Logical Reasoning – Articles
© 2024 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice

Match a flaw | Quick guide

Google Classroom

A quick guide to approaching questions that ask you to find the choice containing a Matching Flaw

This question type is asking you to find a choice containing an argument that exhibits the same flaws as the passage’s argument. It’s very important to focus on the flaws, and not get distracted by the content of the arguments in question. To “match,” two arguments only have to exhibit the same flaw; they don’t have to be on the same topic.
Wrong choices will contain arguments that exhibit either no flaw, or a different kind of flaw than the passage does.
It’s also important to note that these questions tend to require a lot of time, just like questions that ask you to match the technique, method, or pattern of reasoning. Be strategic about how much time you spend on these, don’t be afraid to skip them and come back, and take shortcuts wherever you can.
Identify the flaw in the passage’s argument
  • If you can spot a common flaw, it’ll make it easier for you to find a matching choice, but you won’t always find a common flaw. Often, it's helpful to break the argument into its conclusion and evidence in order to spot the flaw.
Diagram if needed
  • In match the flaw questions, you can often diagram the passage’s argument, particularly if you see repeating terms that relate to each other. For example: “Either X or Y will happen. Since X is unlikely to happen, Y will definitely happen.”
Eliminate/test choices one at a time
  • Since a specific prediction isn’t possible for these question types, test each choice (diagramming where applicable) to find the argument that exhibits the same flaw as the stimulus does.
  • One way to begin is to eliminate a choice as soon as its conclusion type doesn't match the argument's conclusion type, so that you don’t have to read the entire argument. If the type of conclusion is very different than the original argument’s conclusion, it’s not likely to exhibit the same flaw. Additionally, if you see that a choice is not flawed to begin with, then you can rule that choice out as well.

Want to join the conversation?

Log in