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?
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.
I wonder if there is a difference in finding the answer when the question says "most seriously" vs. "most". When one looks for the answer if it reads most seriously are we to look for the answer that hurts the argument the most?
From my understanding weakening questions ask us to ATTACK the support given by premises in argument to its conclusion.
That means that we must thin out (weaken) the amount of strength to premises provide to the conclusion by stripping them of they supportive power.
THE stronger an argument is the STRONGER the supportive power of the premises being true provide that the conclusion is also true making it a stronger argument.
THE WEAKER the the supportive power of the premises all thought true to the conclusion that is also true make and argument weaker.
When weakening an argument u are NOT attacking the premises or conclusions and sating wether or not they are true you are stripping away the power that premises have to support the conclusion, the premises and conclusion stay in tact u are simply removing the support.
ok so in essence, weaken the EXISTING premises that support a conclusion and don't create NEW premises that undermine the conclusion?
Someone please let me know if I am on the right track (thanks in advance!) #help
-1
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
347 comments
Just tanked my November LSAT... found myself coming back here. We got this :') i think...
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?
"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 😂
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.
10/10 unexpected lesson... now if only i had 8 dragon balls to wish for a 180 LSAT score :(
LMAO if every lesson had Goku references I would ace this
When will we get Vegeta to teach us about LSAT concepts?
The only logical conclusion is that Goku and Vegeta need to fight in court.
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.
Perfect lesson
Iconic moment. I too would have somehow got Goku into my LSAT training website curriculum .. if I had one.
Of all the lessons I have watched, this is the most helpful. ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
The Goku analogy is SO helpful in conceptualizing this!
Finally! Before I got 7Sage, I heard that there were lots of Dragon Ball Z references in the CC and I hadn't seen one until now; glad they're back!
TO WEAKEN ANY ARGUMENT, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND ONE THING.
Here it is: You have to take away the support.
Answers that attack the premise are almost never the right answer.
Don't touch Goku
I wonder if there is a difference in finding the answer when the question says "most seriously" vs. "most". When one looks for the answer if it reads most seriously are we to look for the answer that hurts the argument the most?
From my understanding weakening questions ask us to ATTACK the support given by premises in argument to its conclusion.
That means that we must thin out (weaken) the amount of strength to premises provide to the conclusion by stripping them of they supportive power.
THE stronger an argument is the STRONGER the supportive power of the premises being true provide that the conclusion is also true making it a stronger argument.
THE WEAKER the the supportive power of the premises all thought true to the conclusion that is also true make and argument weaker.
When weakening an argument u are NOT attacking the premises or conclusions and sating wether or not they are true you are stripping away the power that premises have to support the conclusion, the premises and conclusion stay in tact u are simply removing the support.
ok so in essence, weaken the EXISTING premises that support a conclusion and don't create NEW premises that undermine the conclusion?
Someone please let me know if I am on the right track (thanks in advance!) #help