I find myself getting stuck on a lot of weaken/strengthen questions in RC because I just don't know how to approach it. In LR I always tell myself to look for assumptions and overlooked possibilities, and in general think of making the premises less supportive or stronger support for the conclusion, and also staying away from trap answers that independently attack the conclusion or deny premises. However, in RC there's not really clear premises or reasoning so I find it hard to wrap my head around how we're supposed to then strengthen or weaken an author's argument, and whether we should consider ACs that seem to independently go against their position or give an independent reason to strengthen it.

Any suggestions on how to think about these questions?

If you end up having to retake the exam, what happens if the practice tests that you have left (the ones that are completely fresh/new to you) are very limited? Basically what if you run out of study material but you need to take the exam a second or third time?

I'm taking the LSAT for the first time in August 2025, but I think it's very likely I'll have to retake it. I'm limiting myself to only use odd numbered PTs for full length practice test, sections, and drills. But even then I'm worried about running out of material in the long run.

How do you get past that hurdle of my gut reaction in BR being to just stick with the answer choice I chose on the first go around? I feel like I'm falling victim to confirmation bias, like when seeing my chosen answer again the second time, I'm just automatically coming up with and reaffirming the same initial (albeit wrong) reasons I thought it was correct, and then glossing over what I first thought are issues with the true correct answer. So BR, at least so far, has been really ineffective at getting any improvement in choosing the right answers.

I'm not too sure what is the difference between weaken questions and flaw questions. If we're describing a flaw that the author makes in their reasoning, for example that they take for granted an assumption, then wouldn't it be that if this answer were true (like the unstated assumption was actually false), then this would weaken the argument since it would undermine the conclusion? I feel like the intent of these two questions kind of overlap, like is pointing out a flaw in the author's argument not the same thing as trying to weaken it?