Answering this question requires one to determine in what way they personally interpret the world. These aren't hard sciences, so it has some room for subjectivity (hence why they are defined as perspectives).
The functionalist perspective emphasizes the idea that society is made up of several social institutions working together. For example, family systems, school systems, business systems, and political systems are all cogs within a societal machine meant to promote social harmony. To approach social issues with this perspective is to deem some issues as "functional" or "dysfunctional." One potential problem when tackling social issues with the functionalist perspective is that this perspective is predicated on the idea that these social institutions are constructed for good, and it may be too lenient on possible malice amongst the institutions themselves because of a generalized hopeful outlook keen on maintaining the status quo.
The symbolic interactionist perspective is focused on the micro (to the best of its ability whilst still remaining within the realm of sociology). It focuses on individuals and how they interact within groups as opposed to focusing solely on the groups the individuals inhabit. When tackling social issues, one potential problem to come about with this perspective is its lack of help; the perspective provides too much specificity and individual interpretation to provide a social framework from which one can determine a conclusion.
The conflict perspective perceives the world as several social institutions fighting for power and influence. If a person is a Marxist or modern feminist, they may be inclined to perceive the world in this manner, as it heavily criticizes capitalism and current hierarchies by claiming patriarchal oppression. One potential problem when tackling social issues that may arise out of this perspective is too stringently (and unfairly) categorizing people into groups to perpetuate a dangerous system from which a hierarchy based on oppression may be created.