Match Flaws: Master LSAT Parallel Flaw Reasoning Questions
Learn expert strategies to identify flawed reasoning patterns, match logical errors across arguments, and ace parallel flaw questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning section with official examples and proven matching techniques.
Match flaws questions, also called parallel flaw questions or parallel reasoning with flaw questions, are advanced LSAT Logical Reasoning questions that combine two challenging skills: identifying logical errors and recognizing structural patterns. These questions present a flawed argument and ask you to find another argument that commits the same type of reasoning error with the same logical structure.
The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) includes match flaws questions to assess sophisticated analytical abilities essential for legal practice. Attorneys must recognize patterns in legal reasoning, identify when different cases involve similar logical errors, and apply precedents by matching argumentative structures—exactly the skills these questions test.
📊 Question Frequency and Difficulty
Match flaws questions typically appear 1-3 times per Logical Reasoning section, making them less frequent than regular flaw questions but more common than some specialized types. They're considered among the most difficult Logical Reasoning questions because they require both flaw identification and structural matching—two complex tasks combined into one question.
Time Investment: These questions typically take 90-120 seconds, longer than most LR questions. However, mastering them demonstrates elite-level reasoning skills and can differentiate high scorers (170+) from mid-range scorers.
What Are Match Flaws Questions
Match flaws questions present a stimulus argument that contains a logical error, then ask you to identify which answer choice contains an argument with the same flaw and the same logical structure. You're not just finding any flawed argument—you're finding one that's flawed in the exact same way and follows the same reasoning pattern.
🔍 Common Question Stems
Standard Parallel Flaw Stems:
- "Which one of the following exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that exhibited by the argument above?"
- "The flawed reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the argument above?"
- "Which one of the following arguments contains a flaw that is most similar to one in the argument above?"
- "The reasoning in the argument is flawed in a way most similar to the reasoning in which one of the following?"
Key Phrases to Recognize:
- "Flawed pattern of reasoning"
- "Most similar flaw"
- "Exhibits flaw most similar to"
- "Parallel reasoning error"
The Dual Challenge
Match flaws questions demand mastery of two distinct skills simultaneously:
Skill 1: Flaw Identification
Task: Identify what logical error the stimulus argument commits
Examples: Correlation-causation confusion, sufficient-necessary reversal, unrepresentative sample, part-whole error, etc.
Requirement: Precisely name and describe the specific reasoning error
Skill 2: Structural Matching
Task: Find an argument with the same logical structure and pattern
Examples: Same conditional relationships, same quantifiers, same conclusion type, same premise arrangement
Requirement: Abstract the logical form and match it precisely, not just the flaw type
Same Flaw Type + Same Logical Structure = Correct Answer
Both components must match—flaw type alone isn't sufficient
Match Flaws vs. Related Question Types
| Question Type | Task | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Identify a Flaw | Describe the flaw in the argument | Flaw identification only |
| Parallel Reasoning | Match the logical structure (valid argument) | Structure matching only (no flaw) |
| Match Flaws | Find argument with same flaw and structure | Both flaw identification AND structure matching |
Official LSAC-Style Example Analysis
Let's examine an LSAT-style match flaws question to understand both identification and matching:
📚 Match Flaws Example
Stimulus: Every successful novelist is an avid reader. Maria is a successful novelist. Therefore, Maria must spend most of her free time reading.
Which one of the following exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that exhibited by the argument above?
- Every professional athlete trains regularly. John trains regularly. Therefore, John must be a professional athlete.
- Every doctor has completed medical school. Sarah is a doctor. Therefore, Sarah must enjoy studying medicine.
- Every teacher needs patience. Robert is a teacher. Therefore, Robert must be patient.
- Every lawyer passed the bar exam. Jennifer passed the bar exam. Therefore, Jennifer must practice law.
- Every pianist practices daily. Michael practices daily. Therefore, Michael must be a pianist.
Step-by-Step Analysis
Step 1: Identify the Conclusion and Premises in the Stimulus
Argument Structure
Premise 1: Every successful novelist is an avid reader
Premise 2: Maria is a successful novelist
Conclusion: Maria must spend most of her free time reading
Step 2: Abstract the Logical Form
Logical Form (Using Variables)
Premise 1: All A are B (A → B)
Premise 2: X is A
Valid Inference from these premises: X is B
What the argument actually concludes: X is C (where C is something beyond B)
Translation:
- A = successful novelist
- B = avid reader
- X = Maria
- C = spends most free time reading (beyond just being an avid reader)
Step 3: Identify the Specific Flaw
The Flaw
Flaw Type: Unjustified scope expansion / Unwarranted assumption
Description: The premises validly support that Maria is an avid reader (B), but the conclusion goes beyond this to claim she spends most of her free time reading (C). Being an "avid reader" doesn't necessarily mean spending "most free time" reading—that's an additional claim unsupported by the premises.
Logical Form of Flaw: From A → B and X is A, validly infers X is B, but then incorrectly extends to X is C without justification.
Step 4: Evaluate Each Answer Choice
(A) Professional athlete argument:
Structure: All A are B (athletes → train). X is B (John trains). Therefore, X is A (John is athlete).
Flaw: Affirming the consequent / Reversing sufficient and necessary (A → B treated as B → A)
Match? ✗ Different structure and different flaw. This reverses the conditional, while the stimulus extends the conclusion beyond what's warranted.
(B) Doctor argument:
Structure: All A are B (doctors → completed med school). X is A (Sarah is doctor). Therefore, X is C (Sarah enjoys studying medicine).
Flaw: The premises validly support that Sarah completed med school (B), but the conclusion claims she enjoys studying medicine (C)—an unjustified extension beyond what the premises support.
Match? ✓ Same structure and same flaw! Both arguments validly establish one characteristic (B) but then conclude an additional, unsupported characteristic (C).
(C) Teacher argument:
Structure: All A need B (teachers → need patience). X is A (Robert is teacher). Therefore, X has B (Robert is patient).
Flaw: Assumes that needing patience means having patience. However, this is actually much closer to a valid inference than the stimulus.
Match? ✗ Different flaw. This is arguably valid or near-valid reasoning (teachers need patience, so they likely have it), whereas the stimulus makes a clear unjustified leap.
(D) Lawyer argument:
Structure: All A are B (lawyers → passed bar). X is B (Jennifer passed bar). Therefore, X is A (Jennifer is lawyer).
Flaw: Affirming the consequent / Reversing the conditional
Match? ✗ Different structure and flaw (same problem as choice A)
(E) Pianist argument:
Structure: All A do B (pianists → practice daily). X does B (Michael practices daily). Therefore, X is A (Michael is pianist).
Flaw: Affirming the consequent / Reversing the conditional
Match? ✗ Different structure and flaw (same problem as choices A and D)
✓ Why (B) is Correct
Matching Flaw Type: Both arguments make an unjustified scope expansion. They validly establish one characteristic but then conclude an additional, unsupported characteristic.
Matching Structure:
- Both: All A are B
- Both: X is A
- Both: Validly inferred but not explicitly stated: X is B
- Both: Actual conclusion (the flaw): X is C (something beyond B)
Why Others Fail: Choices (A), (D), and (E) all commit conditional reversal—a different flaw entirely. Choice (C) is nearly valid, not clearly flawed like the stimulus.
Comprehensive Strategy for Match Flaws Questions
Success requires a systematic, two-phase approach: first identify and abstract the flaw, then match both flaw type and structure:
Read the Question Stem First
Confirm it's a match flaws question (look for "flawed pattern of reasoning most similar"). This tells you to focus on both the flaw and the structure. You'll need to work more carefully than with simple flaw identification.
Identify the Conclusion and Premises
Break down the stimulus argument into its components: what is the author concluding, and what evidence supports it? Use conclusion indicators (therefore, thus, so) and premise indicators (because, since, given that).
Identify the Specific Flaw
Determine exactly what logical error the argument commits. Is it correlation-causation? Sufficient-necessary confusion? Part-whole error? Unwarranted assumption? Be precise—not just "it's flawed," but "it treats correlation as causation" or "it reverses a sufficient condition."
Abstract the Logical Structure
Replace specific content with variables (A, B, C, X, Y). For example: "All A are B. X is A. Therefore X is C." This abstraction helps you see the form clearly and match it in answer choices regardless of subject matter.
Note Structural Details
Pay attention to quantifiers (all, some, most), conditional relationships (if-then), premise count, conclusion type, and logical connectors. These structural elements must match in the correct answer.
Predict What You're Looking For
Before reading answers, articulate: "I need an argument that [commits specific flaw] with the structure [your abstraction]." This prediction prevents you from being distracted by superficially similar but structurally different arguments.
Test Each Answer for Both Flaw and Structure
For each choice: (1) Abstract its structure using your variables. Does it match? (2) Identify its flaw. Is it the same type? Both must match for the answer to be correct. Eliminate immediately if either fails.
Use Content Neutrality
Don't be distracted by subject matter. An argument about sports can parallel one about medicine. Focus exclusively on logical form and flaw type, not topics.
⚠️ The "Same Flaw, Different Structure" Trap
Wrong answers often have the right flaw type but wrong structure, or right structure but wrong flaw. For example, if the stimulus commits correlation-causation with structure A ∧ B → A causes B, a wrong answer might also be correlation-causation but with structure A before B → A causes B. Same flaw, different form. Both must match!
Common Flaw Types in Match Flaws Questions
While any flaw can appear, certain types are particularly common in parallel flaw questions because they have clear, matchable structures:
1. Sufficient-Necessary Confusion (Most Common)
Flaw Description
Error: Treating a sufficient condition as if it were necessary, or vice versa; often manifests as conditional reversal
Logical Form: A → B treated as B → A
Stimulus Example: "All doctors are college graduates. John is a college graduate. Therefore, John is a doctor."
Structure: All A are B. X is B. Therefore X is A. (A → B, B, ∴ A)
Matching Answer: "All professional athletes train daily. Maria trains daily. Therefore, Maria is a professional athlete."
Why It Matches: Same flaw (affirming the consequent) and same logical structure
2. Correlation-Causation
Flaw Description
Error: Inferring causal relationship from mere correlation
Logical Form: A correlates with B → A causes B
Stimulus Example: "Countries with higher chocolate consumption have more Nobel Prize winners. Therefore, eating chocolate causes people to win Nobel Prizes."
Matching Answer: "Cities with more parks have lower crime rates. Therefore, building parks reduces crime."
Why It Matches: Both infer causation (A causes B) from correlation (A and B occur together), with the same directional structure
3. Overgeneralization from Unrepresentative Sample
Flaw Description
Error: Drawing broad conclusion from narrow, biased, or small sample
Stimulus Example: "I surveyed students at my elite private school, and 80% plan to attend Ivy League universities. Therefore, most high school students nationwide plan to attend Ivy League schools."
Matching Answer: "I polled customers at this luxury car dealership, and 90% own vacation homes. Therefore, most car buyers own vacation homes."
Why It Matches: Both generalize from clearly unrepresentative samples (elite school students, luxury dealership customers) to broader populations (all students, all car buyers)
4. Part-Whole Composition
Flaw Description
Error: Assuming what's true of parts must be true of the whole
Stimulus Example: "Every component of this machine is lightweight. Therefore, the machine itself must be lightweight."
Matching Answer: "Each individual brick weighs very little. Therefore, a building made of these bricks will weigh very little."
Why It Matches: Both commit composition fallacy with same structure: parts have property P, therefore whole has property P
5. Scope Shift / Unwarranted Assumption
Flaw Description
Error: Concluding something beyond what the evidence supports
Stimulus Example: "All successful CEOs work hard. Sarah works hard. Therefore, Sarah will become wealthy."
Matching Answer: "All Olympic athletes train intensely. Michael trains intensely. Therefore, Michael will win a gold medal."
Why It Matches: Both establish one fact (works hard / trains intensely) but conclude something further (will become wealthy / will win gold) without justification
The Abstraction Technique for Perfect Matching
Abstraction—replacing specific content with variables—is the most powerful technique for match flaws questions. It forces you to see pure logical form:
Step-by-Step Abstraction Process
🧪 Abstraction Example
Original Argument: "All birds can fly. Penguins are birds. Therefore, penguins can fly."
Step 1: Identify Components
- Category 1: birds
- Property: can fly
- Specific instance: penguins
Step 2: Replace with Variables
- A = birds
- B = can fly
- X = penguins
Step 3: Write Abstract Form
All A are B. X is A. Therefore, X is B.
A → B, X ∈ A, ∴ X is B
Step 4: Identify Structure Type
This is actually a valid argument structure. No flaw! (The premise "all birds can fly" is factually false, but the logical form is valid.)
🧪 Flawed Abstraction Example
Original Argument: "All birds can fly. Bats can fly. Therefore, bats are birds."
Abstraction:
All A are B. X is B. Therefore, X is A.
A → B, B, ∴ A
Flaw: Affirming the consequent / Conditional reversal
To Match This Flaw:
Find an argument with structure: All A are B. X is B. Therefore, X is A.
Example Match: "All lawyers passed the bar exam. Jennifer passed the bar exam. Therefore, Jennifer is a lawyer."
Abstraction: All A are B. X is B. Therefore, X is A. ✓ Perfect match!
Common Structural Patterns to Recognize
| Logical Pattern | Symbolic Form | Flaw Type (if flawed) |
|---|---|---|
| All A are B; X is A; ∴ X is B | A → B, A, ∴ B | Valid (no flaw) |
| All A are B; X is B; ∴ X is A | A → B, B, ∴ A | Affirming consequent |
| All A are B; X is not A; ∴ X is not B | A → B, ¬A, ∴ ¬B | Denying antecedent |
| A and B correlate; ∴ A causes B | A ∼ B, ∴ A → B | Correlation-causation |
| Each part is P; ∴ Whole is P | ∀x∈W: P(x), ∴ P(W) | Composition |
| Whole is P; ∴ Each part is P | P(W), ∴ ∀x∈W: P(x) | Division |
✓ Abstraction Best Practices
- Use consistent variables: A, B, C for categories/properties; X, Y for specific instances
- Preserve quantifiers: "All," "some," "most" are structural—they must match
- Map conditional relationships: Identify if-then structures and preserve their direction
- Count premises: The correct answer should have the same number of premises
- Match conclusion type: Causal, categorical, conditional, or prescriptive conclusions must match
- Ignore content completely: An argument about dogs can match one about economics—only form matters
Common Wrong Answer Patterns
Match flaws wrong answers follow predictable patterns. Learning these accelerates elimination:
1. Same Flaw, Different Structure
The answer commits the same type of flaw (e.g., correlation-causation) but with a different logical arrangement. For instance, the stimulus might be "A and B correlate, so A causes B" while the answer is "A precedes B, so A causes B." Both are correlation-causation, but the structures differ.
2. Same Structure, Different Flaw
The answer matches the logical form but commits a different reasoning error. For example, if the stimulus commits conditional reversal, an answer might have the same premise-conclusion structure but commit circular reasoning instead.
3. Valid Argument (No Flaw)
Approximately 20-30% of wrong answers in parallel flaw questions are logically valid arguments. Test makers know students focus on structure while forgetting to verify the flaw exists. Always confirm: does this answer actually contain a logical error?
4. Different Quantifiers
The answer uses different quantifiers than the stimulus. If the stimulus says "all," the answer might say "most" or "some." This changes the logical structure and makes it non-parallel.
5. Extra or Missing Premises
The answer has a different number of premises than the stimulus. If the stimulus has two premises leading to one conclusion, the correct answer should mirror this structure.
6. Different Conclusion Type
If the stimulus concludes a causal relationship, the answer concludes a categorical claim. Or if the stimulus makes a prediction, the answer makes a prescription. The conclusion types must match.
7. Superficial Content Similarity
The answer discusses similar subject matter to the stimulus, making it seem parallel, but the logical structure is entirely different. Don't be distracted by topic—focus on form.
⚠️ The "Good Enough" Fallacy
Students often select the first answer that seems close. Match flaws questions require precision—"similar" isn't enough. The correct answer must match BOTH the specific flaw type AND the exact logical structure. If an answer is 90% right, it's 100% wrong. Check every structural element before selecting.
Advanced Techniques for Elite Performance
Technique 1: Diagram Conditional Structures
For arguments with conditional logic, diagram them using arrows. The correct answer's diagram should look identical to the stimulus's diagram.
Diagramming Example
Stimulus: "If it rains, the game is canceled. The game was canceled. Therefore, it rained."
Diagram:
Rain → Canceled
Canceled
∴ Rain
Flaw: Affirming the consequent (A → B, B, ∴ A)
Matching Answer Must Diagram As:
X → Y
Y
∴ X
Technique 2: The Validity Check
Quickly assess: is the stimulus argument valid or flawed? If flawed, eliminate any answer choices that are valid. About 1-2 answers per question will be valid arguments—instant eliminations.
Technique 3: Premise-Conclusion Counting
Count: How many premises? How many intermediate conclusions? How many final conclusions? The correct answer must match these counts exactly.
Technique 4: Flaw-First Elimination
If you can confidently identify the stimulus flaw, eliminate answers with different flaws before checking structure. This cuts your work significantly—if an answer commits circular reasoning and the stimulus commits conditional reversal, you can eliminate without full structural analysis.
Technique 5: Structure-First Elimination
Alternatively, if the structure is distinctive (e.g., three premises, conditional chain), eliminate answers with different structures first, then check flaw types among remaining answers.
Technique 6: The "Plug In" Method
Once you've abstracted the stimulus to variables, literally substitute the same variables for elements in each answer. Does the result look identical in form? If yes, you've found a structural match.
Abstraction + Pattern Recognition + Systematic Elimination = Sub-90s Completion
How to Practice Match Flaws Questions
Match flaws questions require extensive deliberate practice to build pattern recognition and abstraction skills:
Phase 1: Foundations (Week 1-2)
- Master regular flaw questions first: You can't match flaws until you can identify them reliably
- Practice abstraction separately: Take valid arguments and abstract them to pure logical form
- Study conditional logic thoroughly: Most match flaws questions involve conditional structures
- Work 10-15 match flaws questions untimed from official PrepTests
- Diagram every argument: Both stimulus and all five answer choices using variables
Phase 2: Pattern Recognition (Week 3-4)
- Categorize by flaw type: Group match flaws questions by the type of flaw (conditional reversal, correlation-causation, etc.)
- Practice within categories: Do 5-7 conditional reversal parallel flaws in one session
- Build a pattern library: Create notes on common structures you see repeatedly
- Work 20-25 more questions untimed
- Focus on wrong answer patterns: Catalog why wrong answers fail (valid argument, wrong flaw, different structure)
Phase 3: Speed and Integration (Week 5+)
- Begin timing: Start at 120 seconds per question, work down to 90-100 seconds
- Practice mixed question sets: Match flaws alongside other LR question types
- Develop abstraction shortcuts: Learn to abstract mentally rather than writing everything
- Complete full LR sections: Practice within the context of 25-26 question sections
- Aim for 75-85% accuracy: Match flaws are difficult; 75-85% accuracy is strong
📈 Mastery Indicators
- You can abstract stimulus arguments to logical form in 20-30 seconds
- You recognize common flaw types instantly (conditional reversal, correlation-causation)
- You eliminate 2-3 answers quickly based on structure or flaw type mismatches
- You complete questions in 90-100 seconds consistently
- You achieve 75-85% accuracy on timed practice
- You can explain why every wrong answer fails (wrong flaw, wrong structure, or valid)
Official LSAT Resources for Match Flaws Questions
Use only official materials from the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) and authorized partners for practice:
Primary Official Resources
- LSAC Official Logical Reasoning Overview - Official information about Logical Reasoning section and skills tested
- LSAC Official LSAT Prep - Official preparation materials and study resources
- Official LSAT PrepTests - Published PrepTests with real, previously administered questions
- Khan Academy LSAT Prep - Free official LSAT preparation in partnership with LSAC
- LSAC Sample Questions - Free sample Logical Reasoning questions with explanations
Recommended PrepTest Range
For current question styles and difficulty:
- PrepTests 62-94: Most recent exams with current format
- SuperPrep I & II: Official books with comprehensive explanations
- 10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests: Collections of authentic exams
- PrepTests 52+: Modern LSAT format
📚 Finding Match Flaws Questions
Match flaws (parallel flaw) questions appear 1-3 times per Logical Reasoning section. To find them efficiently in PrepTests:
- Look for question stems containing "flawed pattern of reasoning most similar"
- Online PrepTest indexes categorize questions by type
- Khan Academy's LSAT prep platform tags questions by type for targeted practice
- Across both scored LR sections, expect 2-6 total match flaws questions
⚠️ Official Materials Only
Always practice with official LSAC questions. Match flaws questions require extraordinarily precise argument construction—both the stimulus and all five answer choices must have exact logical structures. Unofficial questions often fail to replicate this precision, leading to confusion about what counts as "matching." LSAC question writers are experts in logical form; third-party questions rarely match their precision.
Frequently Asked Questions
Test Day Strategy for Match Flaws Questions
✓ Quick Reference Checklist
- Confirm it's a match flaws question (look for "flawed pattern of reasoning most similar")
- Identify conclusion and premises in the stimulus
- Identify the specific flaw the argument commits
- Abstract the logical structure using variables
- Note structural details (quantifiers, conditionals, premise count)
- Predict what you're looking for before reading answers
- Test each answer for both flaw and structure
- Eliminate mismatches immediately (different flaw, different structure, or valid)
- Select the answer matching both components
Time Management
⏱️ Optimal Timing
- Simple conditional flaws: 90-100 seconds
- Moderate complexity: 100-110 seconds
- Complex multi-premise arguments: 110-120 seconds
Strategic Decision: If you're not targeting 170+, consider skipping match flaws questions on first pass and returning if time permits. Their low frequency (2-6 per test) and high time cost make them skippable for mid-range scorers. If targeting 170+, invest the time—these questions differentiate elite scorers.
When to Skip and Return
- Skip if: You can't identify the flaw within 30 seconds, the structure seems unusually complex, or you're running behind on timing
- Return if: You finish the section with 3+ minutes remaining and can work carefully without time pressure
- Never skip if: You've practiced extensively and consistently complete them in 90-100 seconds with 75%+ accuracy
Confidence Builders
- Abstraction is learnable: This is pure technique, not intuition. Practice makes perfect.
- Patterns repeat: The same flaw types and structures appear across tests
- You can verify your answer: Unlike some questions, you can check that both flaw and structure match
- Wrong answers are systematically eliminable: Valid arguments, wrong flaws, and wrong structures are quickly eliminated
- Elite scorers master these: They're difficult, so getting them right boosts your percentile significantly
Key Takeaways
Match flaws questions in LSAT Logical Reasoning test sophisticated analytical skills by combining flaw identification with structural pattern matching. These questions assess your ability to recognize that different arguments can exhibit the same reasoning error despite different subject matter—a crucial legal skill when applying precedents, identifying analogous cases, and recognizing patterns in legal arguments across diverse factual contexts.
Success requires mastery of two distinct skills. First, you must identify the specific logical error the stimulus commits—correlation-causation, conditional reversal, unrepresentative sample, part-whole error, or other flaw types. Second, you must abstract the argument to pure logical form, replacing specific content with variables to see the underlying structure clearly. Only when you've accomplished both can you recognize which answer choice exhibits both the same flaw and the same structure.
Flaw Identification + Abstraction + Pattern Recognition = Parallel Perfection
The most common errors stem from incomplete matching. Wrong answers often match the flaw type but have different structures, or match the structure but commit different flaws. Approximately 20-30% of wrong answers are logically valid arguments—test makers know students focus on structure while forgetting to verify the flaw exists. Always apply the dual test: same flaw type AND same structure. Both must match for the answer to be correct.
Abstraction—the systematic replacement of specific content with variables—is your most powerful tool. Conditional logic errors (sufficient-necessary confusion, affirming the consequent) are most common in match flaws questions, appearing in 30-40% of cases. Master conditional diagramming, practice abstracting arguments to symbolic form, and build a mental library of common flaw patterns. After 40-50 match flaws questions, pattern recognition accelerates dramatically, enabling sub-90-second completion times.
🎯 Your Action Plan
- Master regular flaw identification questions first (prerequisite skill)
- Study conditional logic thoroughly—it underlies 30-40% of match flaws
- Obtain official LSAT PrepTests from LSAC.org
- Isolate 30-40 match flaws questions for focused practice
- Practice abstraction systematically—write out variables for every argument
- Build a pattern library categorizing by flaw type (conditional, correlation-causation, etc.)
- Practice both flaw-first and structure-first elimination strategies
- Learn to recognize valid arguments among answer choices (instant eliminations)
- Work from 120 seconds per question down to 90-100 seconds
- Target 75-85% accuracy (these are difficult—75-85% is strong performance)
With systematic abstraction practice, thorough knowledge of common flaw types (especially conditional logic errors), and recognition of wrong answer patterns (valid arguments, wrong flaws, different structures), you'll approach match flaws questions with confidence, efficiently identifying both the logical error and structural pattern to consistently select correct answers. These questions separate elite scorers from the rest—master them to reach your target LSAT score.
Master LSAT Logical Reasoning with RevisionTown
Get comprehensive LSAT prep resources, practice questions, and expert strategies for all Logical Reasoning question types.
Explore More LSAT Resources