Would you say that trap answers in strengthening questions are trying to fake support the premises the same way that trap answers for weakening questions attempt to fake attack the premises?
@ratman23 well, one of the ways to weaken an argument or basically what weakening an argument means is to offer an alternative hypothesis. Basically, a hypothesis that introduces a different cause/idea rather than what has been stated in the stimulus.
But if any of the ACs is attacking the conclusion, then we know that is a wrong one.
For example, if the hyposthesis/conclusion in the stimulus says that Y is the reason for X, but an AC says Y is NOT the reason for X, it is simply wrong because it is directly contradicting or denying conclusion.
@ratman23 I put that as a note because I personally thought weakening means denying whatever is stated in the stimulus , before I go through the lessons.
In the Avatar movie, even if we agree that it has that titanic scene, the argument is still bad. Just cause avater has that sad scene,maybe other movies have sadder ones and make them more touching than Avatar (with the made up titanic scene)
The premises are the blocks at the bottom. The conclusion is the block on the top.
The premises are holding up the conclusion.
If you take away the premises, the conclusion falls down.
So when you’re trying to knock the tower over, you don’t hit the top block. Youpull out the bottom blocks — the premises — and the conclusion falls all by itself.
👉 Take away the premises that are holding up the conclusion, so the conclusion can’t stand anymore.
@GabrielaVillalobos the support is the relationship between the premise(s) and the conclusion(s). It is the strength, or lack thereof, of the logical relationship between them.
What this lesson is saying is that to understand these questions correctly, you need to assume that the given(s) and conclusion(s) are possible in and of themselves (i.e, if the stimulus states that "sharks are dolphins", don't fight them on the fact that this is obviously untrue in real life), and focus instead on the logical relationship between this statement and whatever conclusion is being drawn from it, and pick the answer that undermines that logic.
Could someone explain how pointing out that the premises used to support the conclusion aren't actually relevant (e.g. Titanic being used as justification for the Avatar being the best movie) isn't a valid weakening? Or could someone provide a valid weakening using this example?
@hsuyt25 its asking you to weaken support for the argument rather than attacking the premises. So the argument is that Avatar is the most touching movie and the support is because it contains a sad, romantic scene.
To weaken this argument, you might say "well that's not true. The movie Frozen was more touching because it showed the power of love and sisterhood which is shown to make people feel special. People aren't touched by sadness, they're impacted by happiness." You see how I'm weakening support without saying "no your premises are wrong".
To attack the support of your friend's claim that (conclusion) Avatar is the most touching movie ever because (premise) it's got that sad scene where the ship just sank and Kate Winslet is barely floating on that little piece of wood and Leo lets her stay on while he freezes to death
you would want to argue something like (ignore if what i say was not in the movie) neither Kate or Jack were crying, or that jack actually got into a lifeboat after kate thought he died, or a rescue ship went and picked up jack and kate right after he passed out from freezing.
Right? we would want to Find ACs that do that instead of ones that say: that scene was not in avatar.
375 comments
Check out my perfect argument, its perfect!
When I'm taking the LSAT and doing a weaken question, I'll be mad if one of the answer choices isn't kamehameha
"Instead, you are asked to deprive the support that the premises give to the conclusion, as if with magic."
Takeaway: Lawyers are magicians
Would you say that trap answers in strengthening questions are trying to fake support the premises the same way that trap answers for weakening questions attempt to fake attack the premises?
me on the LSAT trying to answer a weakening question but just thinking about Goku instead
"Wtf? Did the dumbass just confuse Avatar with Titanic?"…..lmfaooo I had this reaction
Thank god the videos are back
Remember weakening does NOT mean:
Attacking or contradicting the premises!
or
contradicting or denying the conclusion!
@Hanifa then what does it mean 🥲
@ratman23 well, one of the ways to weaken an argument or basically what weakening an argument means is to offer an alternative hypothesis. Basically, a hypothesis that introduces a different cause/idea rather than what has been stated in the stimulus.
But if any of the ACs is attacking the conclusion, then we know that is a wrong one.
For example, if the hyposthesis/conclusion in the stimulus says that Y is the reason for X, but an AC says Y is NOT the reason for X, it is simply wrong because it is directly contradicting or denying conclusion.
@ratman23 I put that as a note because I personally thought weakening means denying whatever is stated in the stimulus , before I go through the lessons.
@Hanifa thanks for this !!
Moral of the story: don't even try Goku, try his beam :)
Cant attack goku bc he solos every universe in base form
@AssumptionBandit I have never seen DBZ but this is tough
@AssumptionBandit saitama solos buddy
@EtienneSeverac nuh uh
Weaken has me weakened.....
In the Avatar movie, even if we agree that it has that titanic scene, the argument is still bad. Just cause avater has that sad scene,maybe other movies have sadder ones and make them more touching than Avatar (with the made up titanic scene)
Explained to a toddler:
Imagine you’re building a tower with blocks.
The premises are the blocks at the bottom. The conclusion is the block on the top.
The premises are holding up the conclusion.
If you take away the premises, the conclusion falls down.
So when you’re trying to knock the tower over, you don’t hit the top block. You pull out the bottom blocks — the premises — and the conclusion falls all by itself.
👉 Take away the premises that are holding up the conclusion, so the conclusion can’t stand anymore.
No premises → no conclusion 🧱
I'm not too sure I am following. I thought the premise was the support. How do these two (premise and support) differ from one another?
@GabrielaVillalobos the support is the relationship between the premise(s) and the conclusion(s). It is the strength, or lack thereof, of the logical relationship between them.
What this lesson is saying is that to understand these questions correctly, you need to assume that the given(s) and conclusion(s) are possible in and of themselves (i.e, if the stimulus states that "sharks are dolphins", don't fight them on the fact that this is obviously untrue in real life), and focus instead on the logical relationship between this statement and whatever conclusion is being drawn from it, and pick the answer that undermines that logic.
cause when you're with me my enemies will never win. Please do more Dragon Ball references instead of having questions about shrimp species...
@yunglean2005 Dragon Soul mentioned ‼️
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.
Weakening an argument means to attack the support, not the premise or conclusion. Typically, the right answer will weaken the support.
AND
strengthening the argument will strengthen the support.
I could imagine myself getting tripped up!
Could someone explain how pointing out that the premises used to support the conclusion aren't actually relevant (e.g. Titanic being used as justification for the Avatar being the best movie) isn't a valid weakening? Or could someone provide a valid weakening using this example?
@hsuyt25 its asking you to weaken support for the argument rather than attacking the premises. So the argument is that Avatar is the most touching movie and the support is because it contains a sad, romantic scene.
To weaken this argument, you might say "well that's not true. The movie Frozen was more touching because it showed the power of love and sisterhood which is shown to make people feel special. People aren't touched by sadness, they're impacted by happiness." You see how I'm weakening support without saying "no your premises are wrong".
Hope this helps (if you still needed it haha)
"I will never let you go Jack"
love this teaching way
I got spirit bombs for the opposing counsel or maybe a present for you like hercule!
yooo J.Y. its commie-hammi-ha not come-he-hu-he-hu-he 😂
@Sagacious_Saxon0424 😂😭
Okay, so now I can't not imagine myself destroying any argument with a ki blast. Thanks, 7Sage!
So basically you have to be kinda like Android 19 and absorb the ki from the kamehameha wave?
To attack the support of your friend's claim that (conclusion) Avatar is the most touching movie ever because (premise) it's got that sad scene where the ship just sank and Kate Winslet is barely floating on that little piece of wood and Leo lets her stay on while he freezes to death
you would want to argue something like (ignore if what i say was not in the movie) neither Kate or Jack were crying, or that jack actually got into a lifeboat after kate thought he died, or a rescue ship went and picked up jack and kate right after he passed out from freezing.
Right? we would want to Find ACs that do that instead of ones that say: that scene was not in avatar.
Also that Kate and Jack weren't in Avatar, but Atlantis