Subscription pricing
PT Questions
emmaharutyunyan25181
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
emmaharutyunyan25181
Friday, Jun 17 2022
Read Mike Kim the LSAT Trainer, helped me a lot
I eliminated B based on two possible reasons
Main Reason
-In weaken we have to look for an answer choice that hurts the argument *in relation to the reasoning BETWEEN the conclusion and support.
-the reasoning flaw here is that the author assumes that with a more convincing speech a politician will get more votes. The answer choice we need to look for needs to exploit that flaw. Exploit the fact that a speech can be done in a way to be more convincing (argue against the other side and give reasons for it) but still not result in more votes.
B- The truth of this answer choice does not address the reasoning flaw. Meaning it does not introduce a fact that weakens the relationship between more convincing and votes.
A- however introduces an idea that shows even when a politician adopts this technique, it could result in no change of number of votes (if media cuts out the part where they add this recommendation to their speech) or even in a possible decrease in numbers of votes if the media only airs the part where they argue against his or her position.
Main point in my explanation: Answer choice B could possibly weaken the point made in the conclusion, but in weaken questions we are meant to weaken the reasoning between the support and conclusion.
Another (less trustworthy) reason I eliminated B
I read in the comments on 7sage that common wrong answers in strengthening/weaking questions are answer choices that just repeat something that we already indirectly know from the stimulus.
---Meaning that since its already in the stimulus, it wont affect the argument after the fact----B says many people don't find arguments convincing b/c they are 1.one sided and 2.oversimplified. We already know that when an argument is one sided, it is less convincing (in stimulus) so the fact that it states that politician's arguments are also less convincing to people when they are one sided (answer B) is not information that hurts the argument, since it is already within the argument.