At first, this didn't make any sense. I thought I understood, but when I started practicing I realized I still hadn't wrapped my head around the Goku analogy (and yes, I watched DBZ). What finally helped was thinking about Weaken questions from a detective's perspective.

For example, suppose the stimulus says:

John's fingerprints were found at the scene of the robbery. Therefore, John is the thief.

My job is not to prove John is innocent or argue that the fingerprints weren't found. Instead, I ask: "What additional fact, if true, would make this conclusion less convincing?"

One possible answer is:

John lives in the house where the robbery occurred.

This doesn't deny any premise or reject the conclusion. The fingerprints are still there, and John could still be the thief. Instead, I've introduced another fact that provides an alternative explanation for why his fingerprints were found. As a result, the original evidence no longer supports the conclusion as strongly.

i feel like i understood weaken question types until it was introduced to be similar to rre. Now im confused and get w and rre mixed up 😐

@AliLazim omg same! i was so confused how i got it wrong twice until i saw your comment 😭

congrats! do you have any advice for breaking into the 160's? My highest PT score was a 155

@KayTON3 your questions isnt dumb! I think that is incorrect because shakespreare is not capturing the era, he captured the spirit of that era. So, era would be a modifier. (im unsure if this makes sense lol)