In other words, does a necessary assumption of an argument strengthens the argument? For example, if a stimulus argue that environmental factors caused X instead of genetics, would an answer choice like “environmental factors can sometimes cause X,” which I think is a NA, be strengthening the argument? I honestly think it does, though not much, since it shows that the argument is possible. And if it does, do all NA strengthen it’s pertaining arguments?
jhsu507
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
LSAT
Not provided
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
Not provided
Discussions
jhsu507
Thursday, Aug 15 2019
OH nvm I get it now, I didn't include voting against all other incumbent in the 'example'
jhsu507
Thursday, Aug 15 2019
Unless the "example" was referring to voting for the one she's voting for? But in that case, how do I know what the example was referring to? I'm an ESL student and this is so confusing
@kashibrandi609 said:
In one of the videos JY mentions that strengthening is a super set of different LR questions, SA/PSA/NA. He said that in a sense SA/PSA/NA are strengthening. I would just err on the side of caution of thinking all NA strengthen
Totally forgot about JY's videos! Thanks!