We call this question type a weakening question, and the question stem reads,

Which involving if true, most seriously weaken the argument?

So, you have to understand a couple of things, which we go into a lot of detail on in our full-length course,

but here I'll just try to do my best with the limited amount of time that we have,

but we have to understand what an argument is.

Arguments are made up of premises and conclusions,

and when you weaken an argument, you're always getting into the space between the premises and the conclusion.

Some of the trap answer choices will just try to pull you in different directions

and try to get you to attack the premise itself or attack the conclusion itself, but that would be bad.

The premise is supposed to be supporting the conclusion.

You're supposed to be attacking the support.

You're supposed to be saying something like,

This could be true, but despite this being true, this doesn't have to be true.

It could be true. You don't have to negate it.

You don't have to attack the conclusion,

but let's see how that theoretical idea plays out pragmatically in this question.

let's think about this.

Video game sales over the past three years, so year zero, year one, year two, that's one, two, three years,

it's increased steadily, video game sales.

We can expect a reversal of this trend in the very near future.

Why? Why reversal of this trend?

For years four, five, and six, they're saying decline.

That's where they're saying for us to expect a decline, a projected decline.

Why? You see why? That sounds like, when you're asking why to a statement,

that reflects skepticism, it reflects maybe you don't believe the statement.

It reflects that maybe the author needs to tell you something

that increases your chance of believing in this statement.

So in other words, an explanation, premises, something to support this statement.

So that's what all this stuff is. It's premises to support this stuff.

So that's the very first important thing you have to learn,

which you do learn in our course, which is you got to separate the conclusion from the premises.

Otherwise, you have no idea what this argument is.

And if you don't know that, then you don't know in what space you're operating,

which is right here. That's the space you're operating.

So let's see what the premises say. Why should we believe this?

Because historically, over three quarters of video games sold,

so let's just make this make sense, 75%, the vast majority of video games sold

have been purchased by people from 13 to 16 years of age.

And that's a historical data. So let's think about how this is just the last three years.

Historically, we take into account this and everything else in the past,

like past 10, 20, 30, I don't even know how long video games have been around,

but whatever, decades. Aggregate data over decades reflect that 75% of video games

have been purchased by kids, 13 to 16 year old kids.

And the number of people in this age group is expected to decline over the next 10 years.

So the number of people from 13 to 16 years of age is expected to decline.

So I guess, I don't know, people are having less kids or something.

Whatever, we don't need to, you know, we believe this statement.

We have to take this statement on its face.

So because of that, we're thinking, the argument goes that, well, our target market,

our key target market, 75% of people who buy our video games, how many people are there?

Let's say 100 million people who are within this age group,

but it's expected to drop to like 90 million, to 80, 70, 60, maybe 50 million over the next 10 years.

So that's why we say we expect this increase to go down.

But there are a lot of things that, I mean, you know, this is not a terrible argument.

This premise does have some support. There is some support going up to make you believe this conclusion.

I certainly believe this conclusion more having read this than not having read this.

So that's at least a way to prove to yourself that this is a premise that does give support.

But now here comes our task of weakening.

We have to say, fine, despite the fact that this is true, this gives less support to this.

So we have to introduce other factors.

This argument makes a lot of presumptions that perhaps we can overturn.

So let's see if we can do that. A says most people 17 years or older have never purchased a video game.

This is like the pessimist in our company who's making this argument, saying, guys, you know, reporting the CEO,

you better watch out, our sales are going to drop because of blah, blah, blah.

And then if we say A, and that bolsters this argument.

If most people 17 years older have never purchased a video game, then yeah,

then that sucks that our target demographic is declining.

You know, I can try to say, well, then we have to change our mind, then we have to advertise them.

We have to really convince 23-year-olds to buy video games.

But if this statement is true just on its face of it, it makes this argument better.

It makes this premise support the conclusion more. In conjunction, this premise,

in conjunction with A, makes me believe this statement even more.

So I think this is a strengthening answer choice, which is a type of logical reasoning question.

And of course, it's not by accident that they threw a strengthening answer and a weakening.

It's to get you confused about what it is that you're trying to do.

Right, you re-aid, you're like, OK, does it weaken, does it, hopefully you're not confused.

Hopefully you realize that we are trying to weaken this argument, not make this stronger.

But what does that have to do with anything? Video game rentals have declined over the past three years,

but sales have grown, right, over the past three years. We know sales have grown.

Maybe it was like the expensive rent. People, you know, I would have rented, but instead I bought.

Right, so my, as a statistic, the rental goes down, as a statistic, the purchase goes up.

So maybe that explains why this goes up. But that has no bearing, right?

You see, that has no, absolutely no bearing on, on, in the future.

What's, what's going to happen? So, so what that this, you know, increase in sales may have come from a decrease in rental.

You see, it just doesn't do anything. It just, it's like, it talks about, you know, like, I don't know.

Over the past three years, shooters have won indie game awards or something.

Okay, great. You're talking about video games. I know you're talking about video games, but that's a non sequitur.

Please don't participate in this conversation because you're just distracting.

You know, you're distracting everyone from trying to get to the, get to the point here.

So B is very, very irrelevant. C says new technology will undoubtedly make entire new entertainment options available over the next 10 years.

If I'm, if I'm like president of Sony Corporation's, I don't know, PlayStation department or something,

and, and, and then this pessimist in my company says this, I'm like, all right, well, what do we do?

And the other way, I'm not done yet. New technologies, right?

Microsoft is developing a new technology that will make new entertainment options available that will, you know, that might compete with our video games.

That makes me worried even more, right? That makes me think, well, maybe it is declining.

So it certainly doesn't weaken the argument.

I'm not, I think it would be too strong to say this strengthens argument.

Just like, you know, I was being a little, I suppose I was exaggerating a little bit when I say a strength in argument.

The safe thing to say is if anything is strengthens argument, it might not because we just never know because it's not a strengthening question.

So we don't have the empirical data of which answer choice the LSAT considers strengthening.

But if anything, A and C, I think strengthens. D says the number of different types of video games available is unlikely to decrease in the near future.

This one is a first person shooter. This one is a strategy. This one is a puzzle game.

This one is, I don't know, fantasy role playing. This one is whatever.

So you have all these different types. We're saying we have five types now.

It's unlikely to decrease. So in the future, it will be five types or six types, seven types, eight types or increase.

Okay, what does that have to, how does a different number of types of video games affect whether or not our sales are going to decline?

You see, we have to make so many presumptions. We have to assume something about, oh, we've reached the optimal number of types and if it remains the same, it'll increase.

I don't even know what, we're making stuff up.

D also doesn't do anything. E says most of the people who have purchased video games over the past three years, that's this.

So they're saying most of the people who purchased, so of this entire group, of the entire group that, you know, they purchased 100 units in year zero and they purchased 300 units in year three.

So they're saying of the people in this group, most of them are actually 23-year-olds.

Well, if that's the case, if that's the case, then that's really great. That's great news.

I would say back, okay, but why did you look at historical data? Why did you aggregate data for the past like 20, 30 years to give me the 75% that was age 13, 16?

Why didn't you tell me instead of historically, why didn't you tell me over the past three years, what percentage of people purchased video games over 13 to 16?

See, E is effectively telling us that over the past three years, it's not 75%. The people, the percentage of people between the age of 13 and 16 is less than 50%.

You see, most of the people who purchased video games were 23 years old. So that means 51% or more, which means the number of people who are 13 and 16 must be less than half.

So that's great news. You see, then it's not as, you know, so do you see what's going on?

Despite the fact that this premise is still true, historically, yes, it's true that 75%, but it's not as relevant anymore, right?

It has not as much strength to make me believe that we're going to expect a reversal.

I mean, we still could get a reversal, I suppose, but like, certainly not, not this premise will make us believe that less.

And that's really the power of a weakening answer choice, a correct weakening answer choice does just that.