@Nwimbish I think the biggest indicator would be the stem. RRE questions will often ask you to resolve the apparent discrepancy. This means that the stimulus seemingly contradicts itself, and you have to select the correct AC which untangles the contradiction. With weaken questions, however, you are looking for an AC that disproves the conclusion. I hope that is helpful
people complain every chance they get, the lesson approach was a valid and helpful transition into weaken questions, nicely done. you need a positive mindset to do good
Man, this lesson needs reworking. 100% agree that the constant flipping between RRE and Weaken is confusing for no reason ... also really don't see the value in providing A as an answer, changing the stim to include it, and then actually getting to the question.
I feel these questions are trying to find flaws in the support, like the game Jenga. We are trying to find the loose block to take it out and weaken the tower.
For those that are confused, I understand. But I think the main point of the video was to display the differences in question types, how to identify question types, and how to approach specific question types. Hang in there guys.
I generally really find the videos helpful, however - at 1:10 - 2:39, switching out the question stem from a weakening question to the RRE stem way more confusing for someone who studies by copying notes by hand.
Not having the final sentence of the stimulus was an awkward choice.
This explanation threw me off completely. I feel that there should be another one.
Why did you add information? Can you explain without having to add that sentence? I say this because what if a person doesn't assume the conclusion you assumed? Now the thought process could change. IDK, maybe I'm reading too much into it.
@AyaniZ For this type of weakening question, the best way to weaken the support is by sapping the hypothesis/conclusion. To do that you need to find an alternative hypothesis that could answer the phenomena in another way other than the hypothesis given in the stimulus. You don't have to come up with an alternative on your own because you can use process of elimination and parse out the answer that would give a solid hypothesis that would sap the original one. I hope that makes sense!
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!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
84 comments
When taking the exam, How do I know if i'm answering a RRE question or a Weaken question? I'm struggling to understand the difference
@Nwimbish I think the biggest indicator would be the stem. RRE questions will often ask you to resolve the apparent discrepancy. This means that the stimulus seemingly contradicts itself, and you have to select the correct AC which untangles the contradiction. With weaken questions, however, you are looking for an AC that disproves the conclusion. I hope that is helpful
people complain every chance they get, the lesson approach was a valid and helpful transition into weaken questions, nicely done. you need a positive mindset to do good
Man, this lesson needs reworking. 100% agree that the constant flipping between RRE and Weaken is confusing for no reason ... also really don't see the value in providing A as an answer, changing the stim to include it, and then actually getting to the question.
jy gave birth omg
I feel these questions are trying to find flaws in the support, like the game Jenga. We are trying to find the loose block to take it out and weaken the tower.
Sounds like Jocko went bananas...
Am I an idiot? What’s the answer?!!!!
@AndreCarter B
It weakens the argument.
I dont get it
So would D STRENGHTHEN?
the constant switching between RRE and the actual question was very confusing... it might be nice to adjust this in the new gen of videos! :)
For those that are confused, I understand. But I think the main point of the video was to display the differences in question types, how to identify question types, and how to approach specific question types. Hang in there guys.
i would give jocko many bananas
changing this Q to an RRE format just made it way more confusing IMO
This explanation is beyond confusing.
soooo confused...
I generally really find the videos helpful, however - at 1:10 - 2:39, switching out the question stem from a weakening question to the RRE stem way more confusing for someone who studies by copying notes by hand.
Not having the final sentence of the stimulus was an awkward choice.
So when you weaken your attack the assumption correct? or the line of reasoning to the conclusion?
The Inception of 7Sage LSAT lessons
wth are we even talking about here?
@CaldonJones no cuz fr there's too much going on
okay so im not the only one that felt a little lost by the explanation haha. the written ones are great but the video made me feel more confused.
my guy, this was not your best work.
@ZachistheLawyerinCharge am i tweaking or is the question completely different from the question in the video
This explanation threw me off completely. I feel that there should be another one.
Why did you add information? Can you explain without having to add that sentence? I say this because what if a person doesn't assume the conclusion you assumed? Now the thought process could change. IDK, maybe I'm reading too much into it.
@AyaniZ For this type of weakening question, the best way to weaken the support is by sapping the hypothesis/conclusion. To do that you need to find an alternative hypothesis that could answer the phenomena in another way other than the hypothesis given in the stimulus. You don't have to come up with an alternative on your own because you can use process of elimination and parse out the answer that would give a solid hypothesis that would sap the original one. I hope that makes sense!
we need some more of Kevins versions. obvi shout JY for doing all these, but I have a preference for Kevins explanations, less confusion imo lol
Justice for Jocko