Subscription pricing
I ask this question because obviously on analysis questions you are supposed to analyze for the strength/validity of the argument and you can often find flaws with it. However certain other questions need you just to figure out the structure and describe or something like that. Whenever i do these questions, i still try to see the argument and try to figure out if it has any flaws and or how to make it a valid argument. Is that a good idea? or is it a waste of time since those kinds of questions would have "perfect" arguments.
0
2 comments
Any time they ask you a weaken/strengthen/flaw/SA/NA, the argument is by definition not valid. They can potentially be valid otherwise. Remember that they can always "just" ask you to find a main conclusion or identify an argument part instead of asking you to actually manipulate the argument by strengthening/weakening/whatever else.
It's a good exercise to evaluate the strength of arguments independent of the question they ask you. I have my students do it all the time. At the end of the day, if you're fluent at breaking apart arguments and seeing how they tick (and what's wrong with them, if anything), it won't matter what question they ask you.
Typically there won't be an argument in MBT or MSS questions. For argument parts questions, you need to figure out the logic structure. But don't assume them to be perfect. I can see your point to put comas around the word perfect. Being critical is crucial but trying to find flaws in every stimulus will probably be counterproductive. In another word, don't be hypercritical.