Here’s some notes I’ve gathered from J.Y., other 7Sagers, and my personal experience on how to approach weakening questions.
How to Approach Weakening Questions
You should always accept all the premises from the stimulus as true, and weaken the support (or connection) between the premise and the conclusion. In other words, the correct answer choice that weakens the argument will be the one in which you’ve accepted all the premises from the stimulus, but you no longer want to accept the conclusion. You no longer want to accept the conclusion because you’ve found new information that weakens the support between the original premise(s) and the conclusion. This new information (aka the correct answer choice) introduces a new idea that addresses an assumption the stimulus strategically left out.
For example:
P: Jon loves peanut butter and he also loves jelly.
C: Therefore, Jon must also love peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
Correct answer choice that weakens the argument: Jon is allergic to wheat and does not eat bread.
Thought process:
Premise: Jon likes PB&J. Ok, cool.
Conclusion: Since he likes PB&J, he must also like PB&J sandwiches. Hmmm, but how could we be so sure?
What are some assumptions the author is making? Well, we don’t know if Jon likes peanut butter and jelly together. What if he only likes peanut butter on apples? Also, we don’t know if Jon likes bread? In order for the conclusion to be valid that Jon likes PB&J sandwiches, the author assumes that Jon also likes bread. But we were never told that. In other words, that was never a premise introduced in the stimulus. Therefore Jon liking bread is a weak link, an unverified assumption. Let’s check the answer choices and see if any of them introduce any new information about Jon that addresses this assumption.
So what did we do here? We’ve accepted the premises from the stimulus as true that Jon loves peanut butter and jelly, BUT we anticipated an assumption the author made and then found an AC that addresses that assumption by introducing new information that weakens (or attacks) the support between the premises and the conclusion. This new information is that Jon does not eat bread. The author’s conclusion rests upon the assumption that Jon likes bread. But, if Jon does not even eat bread, then how could he possibly like PB&J sandwiches? Bingo. We have successfully weakened the support between the original premise and the conclusion.
This thought process should become an instinctual habit: why is it that although the original premises are true, they still do not guarantee the conclusion from the stimulus?
So what exactly does it mean to weaken (or attack) the support between the premise(s) and the conclusion?
You can conceptualize weakening questions with the following set up: “premise X, therefore conclusion Y.” The correct answer choice will never be “Not X” or “Not Y” (these are traps) because we should approach these questions leaving the original premise(s) and conclusions as untouched; in other words, we should accept the stimulus as true. So, instead, the correct answer choice will support this structure: “Yes, premise X is true, BUT assumption Z exists.” And because assumption Z exists, this assumption Z weakens the relationship between X and Y, calling us to doubt the validity of the original conclusion. Assumption Z = new information that introduces an idea that addresses an assumption the stimulus strategically left out. The correct answer choice will be the one that addresses assumption Z and disproves or negates it, calling into question the power of the relationship between the original premise(s) and conclusion. An example assumption Z: Jon likes bread. Example answer choice that addresses assumption Z: Jon is allergic to wheat and does not eat bread. So, with this in mind, the relationship between the premise and conclusion is now weakened, and we no longer want to accept the original conclusion (Jon likes PB&J sandwiches).
Ultimately, the support is often lacking because of some assumption the argument is making. So get into the habit of asking yourself, "what assumption is the argument making?" In other words, what information is being left out of the stimulus that could totally change how we view the connection between the premise(s) and the conclusion? Also, you can think about causation to understand where the support is lacking (causation is covered in a later lesson).
Sometimes you’ll be able to anticipate the assumptions. There are many potential assumptions to anticipate, some more obvious than others. However, if one of the assumptions you’ve anticipated is not one of the answer choices, no worries. Follow the steps below and you’ll be confident that you’ve identified the correct answer choice.
Steps:
0) Identify the question stem. Take special note if the question says weaken EXCEPT, these ones are tricky and I have additional for these EXCEPT in the last section of this comment.
1) Identify premise(s) and conclusion and simplify the argument. To check your understanding, you can rephrase the premise(s) and conclusion in your own words. There are some key words in the stimulus that can change the meaning or provide greater context and if overlooked, you may not fully understand the stimulus, making it difficult to identify the correct answer choice.
2) Anticipate assumptions the author has made (assumption Z). What has the author conveniently left out or unaddressed that could change how we believe in the connection between the premise(s) and the conclusion? Example assumption Z: Jon likes bread.
3) Look at the answer choices. The correct answer choice will be the one that addresses assumption Z and disproves or negates it. Example AC that addresses assumption Z: Jon is allergic to wheat and does not eat bread.
When you go through the answer choices, you can also ask yourself: “If this answer choice is true, what are the implications? Do the implications actually weaken the support between the original premise(s) and conclusion?” You may hesitate to select an answer choice (that ultimately is the correct one) because you do not fully understand what the AC is saying (this has happened to me plenty of times). Do not disregard an AC just because you are unsure what it means—take the time to really understand it and simplify the AC in your own words before you completely disregard or select it.
Another way to think about the correct answer choice is: the correct answer choice will provide support for the negation of the main conclusion. For example, if the main conclusion is: Jon likes PB&J sandwiches, then the correct answer choice will provide support for the idea that Jon does NOT like PB&J sandwiches.
Types of Answer Choices You’ll See for Weakening Questions
1) Strengthening — these answer choices strengthen the argument instead of weaken it
2) Additional Premises — additional info that adds detail, context, implications, or irrelevant facts. When I read these ACs I usually just think: “okkk, and?” & “so, what?” The majority of answer choices will be this type, and you could check if an AC is simply an additional premise by “inserting” that AC into the stimulus as if the original authors included it in the stimulus; and if the conclusion is at least just as strong as it was before, then that AC is simply an additional premise.
3) Contradicts the Premise — “Not X” these answer choices do not accept the premise from the stimulus as true; they are alternate premises that directly contradict the original premise (a trap!)
4) Weakens — accepts all the premises from the stimulus as true, and weakens the support (or connection) between the premise and the conclusion by introducing a new idea that addresses an assumption the stimulus strategically left out.
Weaken EXCEPT questions:
For these types of questions, if an answer choice weakens the argument, to any extent, then do not select it! It does not have to be the strongest weakening case—it could barely weaken the argument—but if the AC weakens the argument at all, then do not choose it for weaken EXCEPT questions.
Weaken EXCEPT questions are tricky because you may mentally think the correct answer choice strengthens the argument, and so you look at the answer choices with this lens. However, potential correct answer choices for weaken EXCEPT questions could be any of the following: strengthens, neutral, or irrelevant to the argument.
Always read the question stem first, and you can highlight EXCEPT, put your finger on the word, and/or write it down to remind yourself you are dealing with an EXCEPT question. As you go through the answer choices, circle the questions that weaken the argument and/or write “W” besides the answer choice or “A, W” “B, W” etc. in your notebook. As you go through this process, you’ll narrow the AC down to the one that does NOT weaken the argument. That AC could strengthen the argument, be neutral to the argument, or is simply irrelevant to the argument.
A tricky, but good practice weaken EXCEPT question is “The Embezzler” (preptest 32, section 1, question 17).
Here’s a hack I figured out with weakening questions:
Almost all the answer choices fall into one of the following 3 categories-
1) Attack – removes the connection between the premise and the conclusion. (Right answer)
2) Strengthening – actually strengthens the argument instead of weakens
3) Premise – information that either ads context, future implication, more detail, or just irrelevant facts. (Majority of answer choices)
You can identify option 3 by hypothetically adding the answer choice to the argument. Does the conclusion still stand if the test authors had included it in the stimulus? If so, it’s not weakening anything.
Thinking about the questions like this have improved my score on these, but someone tell me if I’m in error somehow.
Wow, what a good way to see it. I think this illustrates just how important studying the type and structure of answer choices is as important as analyzing and understanding the premises thoroughly.
Most Strongly Support: identify the Premise and choose answer that supports
Most seriously weakens: JUST look at the Support and find contradicting evidence.
Contradicting isn't quite the right word - but it's synonymous. Further elaboration would be: contradicting, argument weakening, or argument de-valued evidence.
It is at this moment when I realize J.Y. is a DBZ fan and I choose to swear my fealty to 7sage.
7sage > everything
also, my lame pun for today: If Goku (also known as Kakarot) was a real life person -vested with all his gifts displayed in the show- and decided to study for the LSAT using the best prep service available, what would you call him? A Super-Sagian
drops mic, walks away and then probably gets account suspended for extreme corniness
All of his pop culture examples come from media that targets male demographics. Just an observation. My brother knew what Goku's power thing was; I did not.
In my opinion, his comments like "you missed out on some good shit" are a great part of the course. Often when I'm studying, and particularly after extended periods of studying, I begin to take things too seriously. Almost like I forget there's life outside of the LSAT. His off-the-cuff and often blunt comments always "snap me out of it," so to speak. They lighten me up a bit and remind me to bring a positive perspective to studying. I have always preferred teachers that fuse sarcastic/lighthearted comments into their lessons for this reason.
100%, it breaks up the monotony of the course. I tried the Manhattan Prep books a while back and its a one-way ticket to snoozeville. There are plenty of other options that are more "formal" but I myself learn the best in a more casual setting.
Similarly, in college I excelled much more in classes with professors that were engaging and fun and didn't mind "dumbing down" the material with example, versus professor that stuck to the script and just read off slides the whole class.
It is irrelevant whether you know the reference or not. All he is doing is illustrating a point with an image. You don't have to get the reference, you have to get the point, which is about arguments and support.
There are premises, there are conclusions, and there are relationships between these premises and conclusions. What is the relationship between the premises and the conclusion? Does the conclusion follow logically from the premises?
Why must you know what "Goku's power thing" was? Does knowing about it strengthen your ability to pass the LSAT in some way? My sister watched dragonball and knows what the kamehameha is. Can dragonball still be called media targeted to male demographics based on your definition?
I am a man that has never seen anything with Goku and therefore do not know what his power is. I think it makes sense that HIS examples are typically from male culture since he is a man. His examples are also aged sometimes because he is not 20-something like most of the people in this course.
Does anyone else find phrases like "you missed out on some good shit" to be a little... unprofessional?? Or is it just me? Way too casual IMO, not what I thought I was getting when I signed up.
I find it quite annoying tbh. And after reading the loophole logical reasoning I find these videos kind of a waste of money because they aren't explaining this stuff half as well. If you just watch these videos and don't read loophole you definitely aren't gonna do well on the LR section. Hopefully the LG section is worth the money like everyone is saying...
It's a book by Ellen Cassidy on the logical reasoning section. You can get it on amazon. It's a game changer it makes the logical reasoning section so much easier to understand!! It's called loophole logical reasoning
Your argument is anecdotal, so yes it still can be. Also, redwolf90 doesn't imply that knowing how Goku's power thing impacts one's ability to pass the LSAT. That's just your rebuttal which is based on an assumption. Lastly, research has shown that one's familiarity with a subject matter impacts one's ability to more effectively comprehend (this is actually discussed in RC).
Early in the prep stages it's useful, but coming back to this as a seasoned vet with some real world (LSAT) experience really solidifies the understanding.
Another example could be imagining an entrepreneur pitching their business plan to an investor. The entrepreneur says they are going to make do $3M in sales next year. The investor's job is to probe the assumptions - weaken the argument. What if they don't get to the market share they expect, or don't achieve the margins, or interest rates go up again, etc. It makes $3M seem less likely.
I think a good way of thinking about it is u wanna be a home wrecker. find the thing that would make your dream girl hate her boyfriend the most and put him in the worst light
spent ten minutes on this lesson - not because it was difficult to understand, just got distracted and drew Goku and the car in my notes. great example though!
A lightbulb just went off in my head! I struggle with weaken questions and now I realize that I often attack the premise in favor of an alternative premise (always an answer choice... tricky tricky) instead of choosing the answer that yields the premise to be true and focuses on the connection of the premise and the conclusion. THANK YOU!!!!
"Do not think about attacking the premise, do not think about attacking the conclusion-- rather, think about attacking the support."
hmmmm.... but if the premise IS the support and you are attacking the support, then aren't you still attacking the premise by virtue of attacking the support...
Maybe I am overthinking this and need to go walk my dog or something LOL.
I think what is meant here is that assume the premises to be true, and don't do what most people in casual conversational arguments do and say "that's not true!" Instead, maybe find a pocket that will weaken the argument without saying the premises are not true.
At first, this didn't make any sense. I thought I understood, but when I started practicing I realized I still hadn't wrapped my head around the Goku analogy (and yes, I watched DBZ). What finally helped was thinking about Weaken questions from a detective's perspective.
For example, suppose the stimulus says:
John's fingerprints were found at the scene of the robbery. Therefore, John is the thief.
My job is not to prove John is innocent or argue that the fingerprints weren't found. Instead, I ask: "What additional fact, if true, would make this conclusion less convincing?"
One possible answer is:
John lives in the house where the robbery occurred.
This doesn't deny any premise or reject the conclusion. The fingerprints are still there, and John could still be the thief. Instead, I've introduced another fact that provides an alternative explanation for why his fingerprints were found. As a result, the original evidence no longer supports the conclusion as strongly.
380 comments
Here’s some notes I’ve gathered from J.Y., other 7Sagers, and my personal experience on how to approach weakening questions.
How to Approach Weakening Questions
You should always accept all the premises from the stimulus as true, and weaken the support (or connection) between the premise and the conclusion. In other words, the correct answer choice that weakens the argument will be the one in which you’ve accepted all the premises from the stimulus, but you no longer want to accept the conclusion. You no longer want to accept the conclusion because you’ve found new information that weakens the support between the original premise(s) and the conclusion. This new information (aka the correct answer choice) introduces a new idea that addresses an assumption the stimulus strategically left out.
For example:
P: Jon loves peanut butter and he also loves jelly.
C: Therefore, Jon must also love peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
Correct answer choice that weakens the argument: Jon is allergic to wheat and does not eat bread.
Thought process:
Premise: Jon likes PB&J. Ok, cool.
Conclusion: Since he likes PB&J, he must also like PB&J sandwiches. Hmmm, but how could we be so sure?
What are some assumptions the author is making? Well, we don’t know if Jon likes peanut butter and jelly together. What if he only likes peanut butter on apples? Also, we don’t know if Jon likes bread? In order for the conclusion to be valid that Jon likes PB&J sandwiches, the author assumes that Jon also likes bread. But we were never told that. In other words, that was never a premise introduced in the stimulus. Therefore Jon liking bread is a weak link, an unverified assumption. Let’s check the answer choices and see if any of them introduce any new information about Jon that addresses this assumption.
So what did we do here? We’ve accepted the premises from the stimulus as true that Jon loves peanut butter and jelly, BUT we anticipated an assumption the author made and then found an AC that addresses that assumption by introducing new information that weakens (or attacks) the support between the premises and the conclusion. This new information is that Jon does not eat bread. The author’s conclusion rests upon the assumption that Jon likes bread. But, if Jon does not even eat bread, then how could he possibly like PB&J sandwiches? Bingo. We have successfully weakened the support between the original premise and the conclusion.
This thought process should become an instinctual habit: why is it that although the original premises are true, they still do not guarantee the conclusion from the stimulus?
So what exactly does it mean to weaken (or attack) the support between the premise(s) and the conclusion?
You can conceptualize weakening questions with the following set up: “premise X, therefore conclusion Y.” The correct answer choice will never be “Not X” or “Not Y” (these are traps) because we should approach these questions leaving the original premise(s) and conclusions as untouched; in other words, we should accept the stimulus as true. So, instead, the correct answer choice will support this structure: “Yes, premise X is true, BUT assumption Z exists.” And because assumption Z exists, this assumption Z weakens the relationship between X and Y, calling us to doubt the validity of the original conclusion. Assumption Z = new information that introduces an idea that addresses an assumption the stimulus strategically left out. The correct answer choice will be the one that addresses assumption Z and disproves or negates it, calling into question the power of the relationship between the original premise(s) and conclusion. An example assumption Z: Jon likes bread. Example answer choice that addresses assumption Z: Jon is allergic to wheat and does not eat bread. So, with this in mind, the relationship between the premise and conclusion is now weakened, and we no longer want to accept the original conclusion (Jon likes PB&J sandwiches).
Ultimately, the support is often lacking because of some assumption the argument is making. So get into the habit of asking yourself, "what assumption is the argument making?" In other words, what information is being left out of the stimulus that could totally change how we view the connection between the premise(s) and the conclusion? Also, you can think about causation to understand where the support is lacking (causation is covered in a later lesson).
Sometimes you’ll be able to anticipate the assumptions. There are many potential assumptions to anticipate, some more obvious than others. However, if one of the assumptions you’ve anticipated is not one of the answer choices, no worries. Follow the steps below and you’ll be confident that you’ve identified the correct answer choice.
Steps:
0) Identify the question stem. Take special note if the question says weaken EXCEPT, these ones are tricky and I have additional for these EXCEPT in the last section of this comment.
1) Identify premise(s) and conclusion and simplify the argument. To check your understanding, you can rephrase the premise(s) and conclusion in your own words. There are some key words in the stimulus that can change the meaning or provide greater context and if overlooked, you may not fully understand the stimulus, making it difficult to identify the correct answer choice.
2) Anticipate assumptions the author has made (assumption Z). What has the author conveniently left out or unaddressed that could change how we believe in the connection between the premise(s) and the conclusion? Example assumption Z: Jon likes bread.
3) Look at the answer choices. The correct answer choice will be the one that addresses assumption Z and disproves or negates it. Example AC that addresses assumption Z: Jon is allergic to wheat and does not eat bread.
When you go through the answer choices, you can also ask yourself: “If this answer choice is true, what are the implications? Do the implications actually weaken the support between the original premise(s) and conclusion?” You may hesitate to select an answer choice (that ultimately is the correct one) because you do not fully understand what the AC is saying (this has happened to me plenty of times). Do not disregard an AC just because you are unsure what it means—take the time to really understand it and simplify the AC in your own words before you completely disregard or select it.
Another way to think about the correct answer choice is: the correct answer choice will provide support for the negation of the main conclusion. For example, if the main conclusion is: Jon likes PB&J sandwiches, then the correct answer choice will provide support for the idea that Jon does NOT like PB&J sandwiches.
Types of Answer Choices You’ll See for Weakening Questions
1) Strengthening — these answer choices strengthen the argument instead of weaken it
2) Additional Premises — additional info that adds detail, context, implications, or irrelevant facts. When I read these ACs I usually just think: “okkk, and?” & “so, what?” The majority of answer choices will be this type, and you could check if an AC is simply an additional premise by “inserting” that AC into the stimulus as if the original authors included it in the stimulus; and if the conclusion is at least just as strong as it was before, then that AC is simply an additional premise.
3) Contradicts the Premise — “Not X” these answer choices do not accept the premise from the stimulus as true; they are alternate premises that directly contradict the original premise (a trap!)
4) Weakens — accepts all the premises from the stimulus as true, and weakens the support (or connection) between the premise and the conclusion by introducing a new idea that addresses an assumption the stimulus strategically left out.
Weaken EXCEPT questions:
For these types of questions, if an answer choice weakens the argument, to any extent, then do not select it! It does not have to be the strongest weakening case—it could barely weaken the argument—but if the AC weakens the argument at all, then do not choose it for weaken EXCEPT questions.
Weaken EXCEPT questions are tricky because you may mentally think the correct answer choice strengthens the argument, and so you look at the answer choices with this lens. However, potential correct answer choices for weaken EXCEPT questions could be any of the following: strengthens, neutral, or irrelevant to the argument.
Always read the question stem first, and you can highlight EXCEPT, put your finger on the word, and/or write it down to remind yourself you are dealing with an EXCEPT question. As you go through the answer choices, circle the questions that weaken the argument and/or write “W” besides the answer choice or “A, W” “B, W” etc. in your notebook. As you go through this process, you’ll narrow the AC down to the one that does NOT weaken the argument. That AC could strengthen the argument, be neutral to the argument, or is simply irrelevant to the argument.
A tricky, but good practice weaken EXCEPT question is “The Embezzler” (preptest 32, section 1, question 17).
really helpful! thank you!!
This was really helpful!
Thank you so much!
Thanks for this!!! I understand what to do so much more now!!
Here’s a hack I figured out with weakening questions:
Almost all the answer choices fall into one of the following 3 categories-
1) Attack – removes the connection between the premise and the conclusion. (Right answer)
2) Strengthening – actually strengthens the argument instead of weakens
3) Premise – information that either ads context, future implication, more detail, or just irrelevant facts. (Majority of answer choices)
You can identify option 3 by hypothetically adding the answer choice to the argument. Does the conclusion still stand if the test authors had included it in the stimulus? If so, it’s not weakening anything.
Thinking about the questions like this have improved my score on these, but someone tell me if I’m in error somehow.
Wow, what a good way to see it. I think this illustrates just how important studying the type and structure of answer choices is as important as analyzing and understanding the premises thoroughly.
This is really helpful. Thank you!
Sounds logically sound to me, thanks.
This makes sense to me! Thank you so much!! :)
to breakdown:
Main Conclusion: JUST look at the conclusion
Most Strongly Support: identify the Premise and choose answer that supports
Most seriously weakens: JUST look at the Support and find contradicting evidence.
Contradicting isn't quite the right word - but it's synonymous. Further elaboration would be: contradicting, argument weakening, or argument de-valued evidence.
This is a helpful outline of these 3 types of questions. Thanks!
I would NEVER EVER attack Goku, don't worry!
Man this seems kinda easy to do at first sight, cannot wait to be proven wrong lol
I love the anime metaphors, now I can think of goku's beam whenever I see a weaken question lol
It is at this moment when I realize J.Y. is a DBZ fan and I choose to swear my fealty to 7sage.
7sage > everything
also, my lame pun for today: If Goku (also known as Kakarot) was a real life person -vested with all his gifts displayed in the show- and decided to study for the LSAT using the best prep service available, what would you call him? A Super-Sagian
drops mic, walks away and then probably gets account suspended for extreme corniness
All of his pop culture examples come from media that targets male demographics. Just an observation. My brother knew what Goku's power thing was; I did not.
In my opinion, his comments like "you missed out on some good shit" are a great part of the course. Often when I'm studying, and particularly after extended periods of studying, I begin to take things too seriously. Almost like I forget there's life outside of the LSAT. His off-the-cuff and often blunt comments always "snap me out of it," so to speak. They lighten me up a bit and remind me to bring a positive perspective to studying. I have always preferred teachers that fuse sarcastic/lighthearted comments into their lessons for this reason.
100%, it breaks up the monotony of the course. I tried the Manhattan Prep books a while back and its a one-way ticket to snoozeville. There are plenty of other options that are more "formal" but I myself learn the best in a more casual setting.
Similarly, in college I excelled much more in classes with professors that were engaging and fun and didn't mind "dumbing down" the material with example, versus professor that stuck to the script and just read off slides the whole class.
It is irrelevant whether you know the reference or not. All he is doing is illustrating a point with an image. You don't have to get the reference, you have to get the point, which is about arguments and support.
There are premises, there are conclusions, and there are relationships between these premises and conclusions. What is the relationship between the premises and the conclusion? Does the conclusion follow logically from the premises?
Why must you know what "Goku's power thing" was? Does knowing about it strengthen your ability to pass the LSAT in some way? My sister watched dragonball and knows what the kamehameha is. Can dragonball still be called media targeted to male demographics based on your definition?
#help (Added by Admin)
I agree. Its quite refreshing and actually makes me feel like continuing even after studying for a while as its good to have a laugh
I am a man that has never seen anything with Goku and therefore do not know what his power is. I think it makes sense that HIS examples are typically from male culture since he is a man. His examples are also aged sometimes because he is not 20-something like most of the people in this course.
Does anyone else find phrases like "you missed out on some good shit" to be a little... unprofessional?? Or is it just me? Way too casual IMO, not what I thought I was getting when I signed up.
I find it quite annoying tbh. And after reading the loophole logical reasoning I find these videos kind of a waste of money because they aren't explaining this stuff half as well. If you just watch these videos and don't read loophole you definitely aren't gonna do well on the LR section. Hopefully the LG section is worth the money like everyone is saying...
What is the loophole??
It's a book by Ellen Cassidy on the logical reasoning section. You can get it on amazon. It's a game changer it makes the logical reasoning section so much easier to understand!! It's called loophole logical reasoning
Your argument is anecdotal, so yes it still can be. Also, redwolf90 doesn't imply that knowing how Goku's power thing impacts one's ability to pass the LSAT. That's just your rebuttal which is based on an assumption. Lastly, research has shown that one's familiarity with a subject matter impacts one's ability to more effectively comprehend (this is actually discussed in RC).
Petition to change all Star Wars references to Dragon Ball
Subscribe!
Favorite lesson: Leo and Goku!
Way to bring me back to the late nineties, I love it!
yes please!
The only logical conclusion is that Goku and Vegeta need to fight in court.
me on the LSAT trying to answer a weakening question but just thinking about Goku instead
When will we get Vegeta to teach us about LSAT concepts?
I'm glad to have read this again.
Early in the prep stages it's useful, but coming back to this as a seasoned vet with some real world (LSAT) experience really solidifies the understanding.
Just tanked my November LSAT... found myself coming back here. We got this :') i think...
@kimwexler what score did you get?
@yunglean2005 145 :( granted i only studied 3 months with zero prior knowledge to the LSAT. gotta start somewhere!
@kimwexler Good luck with your studying with effort and time I'm sure you'll get better.
After I collect the seven dragonballs, I'll wish for the sharingan so I can see through the genjutsu the LSAT continues to put me own.
Another example could be imagining an entrepreneur pitching their business plan to an investor. The entrepreneur says they are going to make do $3M in sales next year. The investor's job is to probe the assumptions - weaken the argument. What if they don't get to the market share they expect, or don't achieve the margins, or interest rates go up again, etc. It makes $3M seem less likely.
This was helpful!
Nice! I like this example!!
I think a good way of thinking about it is u wanna be a home wrecker. find the thing that would make your dream girl hate her boyfriend the most and put him in the worst light
spent ten minutes on this lesson - not because it was difficult to understand, just got distracted and drew Goku and the car in my notes. great example though!
hahah same
A lightbulb just went off in my head! I struggle with weaken questions and now I realize that I often attack the premise in favor of an alternative premise (always an answer choice... tricky tricky) instead of choosing the answer that yields the premise to be true and focuses on the connection of the premise and the conclusion. THANK YOU!!!!
10/10 unexpected lesson... now if only i had 8 dragon balls to wish for a 180 LSAT score :(
so real bro
I wish the examples used on here were more general. Any time Star Wars (or Goku in this case) is brought up, I get a bit lost.
"Do not think about attacking the premise, do not think about attacking the conclusion-- rather, think about attacking the support."
hmmmm.... but if the premise IS the support and you are attacking the support, then aren't you still attacking the premise by virtue of attacking the support...
Maybe I am overthinking this and need to go walk my dog or something LOL.
i was thinking just this
I think what is meant here is that assume the premises to be true, and don't do what most people in casual conversational arguments do and say "that's not true!" Instead, maybe find a pocket that will weaken the argument without saying the premises are not true.
anime memes make studying for the lsat way better than i thought, thank you JY Sensei XD
"Wtf? Did the dumbass just confuse Avatar with Titanic?"…..lmfaooo I had this reaction