Weakening Questions - Key Takeaways

Weaken questions have been one of my LR weaknesses (no pun intended lol), and I feel like I am finally improving, so I wanted to share my takeaways in case they help others who struggle with weaken questions. Also, if anyone has corrections or additions to what I've outlined, please comment!

• If an argument says "you should do X solely because of Y", a solid answer choice will point to other factors (e.g., unintended consequences, costs, negative impact, etc.) that the author overlooks and provides a broader picture of why you actually shouldn't do X

• for correlation-causation, the author may be overlooking the fact that Y actually causes X (rather than X causes Y), fails to consider that there is a third factor causing them both, or overlooking the possibility they are simply developing independently

• if an argument saying how a person does something because they are affected by a specific factor, an answer choice saying some people do not do that is not a good weakening answer because the person could still exist within the group who is actually affected by that

• for a phenomenon-hypothesis, looking for an answer that describes a alternative explanation for the hypothesis is a great go-to!

• attack an unstated assumption of the argument. ex: we pay our employees less than other companies because the valuable training compensates them. the author is assuming that valuable training is actually beneficial for them. a solid answer choice would attack this assumption by saying the employees are really experienced, indicating the training isn't necessary or valuable.

• if an argument is based on an analogy that stinks, a good weakening answer will point out a difference between the analogy that points out why the provided analogy is bad

• a correct weakening answer will not say "well some people claim or think differently than the author" because we care about facts, not beliefs (exception: if it is a widely accepted/agreed upon belief). for example, if an argument is advocating for one theory, the correct answer will not describe how some people believe in another theory. if we just shared a contradicting belief, the author of the original argument could just say "okay and I don't believe them?" (it doesn't actually weaken the reasoning in their argument)

• overall, for weaken questions, you need to attack their reasoning. when reading the stimulus, aim to identify what their reasoning is and make sure to eff it up (don't just point to other stuff that makes their conclusion less true)