Weaken and Strengthen Questions

Laabradir33

Weaken and Strengthen questions are my weakest section types and take me much longer to do than any other questions.
I'm not able to prephase what the correct answer would be

Are you guys able to prephase your answers?
I feel like sometimes I just jump into the answer choices with soo many differnet possible answers in mind like "ok the answer could be a different cause, a different element presented, attacking a flaw, necessary negated" and basically I read the answer choices without even knowing what I'm looking for lol

Zachary_P

Strengthen/weaken questions (along with NA and a few other question types) are nearly impossible to prephrase. The reason being that the test makers can bring in outside information to strengthen or weaken the amount of support the premises give to the conclusion. Nicole has a really good webinar in which she breaks down the three main flaws s/w questions use, and I highly suggest you check it out.

A brief example of outside information being brought in... Let's say the stimulus says A is correlated with B, therefore A causes B. We can introduce three ideas to weaken such an argument. We can say that 1) B actually causes A, 2) that some outside factor C causes both A and B, or 3) there is no relationship between A and B (just as many other things are correlated). All three weaken the argument. If we go with option #2, then outside information - that is, information not found in the stimulus - is needed. Unfortunately, we do not know before moving to the AC's which type of strengthen/weaken route will be taken to arrive at the correct answer.

I say all of that to warn that prephrasing can be a timely mistake in s/w questions. Instead, take the few seconds after reading the stimulus to 1) know the conclusion and 2) have a good idea of the support for that conclusion. Especially note where the gap in the support is; there will always be a gap in s/w questions. This is precisely what the correct AC will strengthen/weaken.

AllezAllez21

I think @Zachary_P has good advice. I don't really use pre phrases.

In any case, the key task to do before most LR questions is to really identify the relationship between the support and the conclusion and to recognize how it is flawed. There are plenty of ways to weaken or strengthen such a relationship, but knowing what the relationship is is the key.

1. Read the question stem.
2. Read the stimulus.
3. Identify the conclusion.
4. Identify the support.
5. Understand the relationship between the conclusion and support.
6. Find the flaw in that relationship.
7. Match your mindset to the task of the question stem.
8. Eliminate wrong answers.
9. Confirm the correct answer.

Zachary_P

I concur with @AllezAllez21 ! Well put.

akistotle

@AllezAllez21 said:
In any case, the key task to do before most LR questions is to really identify the relationship between the support and the conclusion and to recognize how it is flawed. There are plenty of ways to weaken or strengthen such a relationship, but knowing what the relationship is is the key.

1. Read the question stem.
2. Read the stimulus.
3. Identify the conclusion.
4. Identify the support.
5. Understand the relationship between the conclusion and support.
6. Find the flaw in that relationship.
7. Match your mindset to the task of the question stem.
8. Eliminate wrong answers.
9. Confirm the correct answer.

This is so well put!

I think you sometimes can prephrase when the flaw is obvious. If not, you have to look at ACs.

BirdLaw818

Part of the difficulty with these questions, for me at least, was that I viewed them as much more complicated than they are, and because I wasnt fully understanding the points the passage was trying to make.

You read the question stem and notice Strengthen/Weaken. Now, you go into the question eyes wide open. Look at what the author has said, what connections he's made and what assumptions he has made. pay close attention to the conclusion and identify it. Now, go through the answer choices and apply them.

This is your argument and someone is talking down on you with each answer choice....read the answer choice and say "this might be true but it doesnt really make my point any less valid" or "this attack is valid and now my conclusion is trash because you just broke down one of my key points/assumptions"...

the reverse is true for strengthen....

just need to be able to identify the conclusion and the structure.

TIPS:

take a bunch of weaken questions, and just take the question stems and write down each sentence as a bullet point. Now, identify the premise, conclusion(s), and then take note of how you think the argument is flawed. The point isn't that you prephase your answer because its usually not in the answers and youve wasted time trying to justify a prephase while youre reading. The point is that when you yourself take the time and go through each paragraph and dissect it, organize it and examine its connections/weak points, it becomes second nature. You see that for example, between the argument points there are holes that need to be filled either with a strengthen answer or a weaken answer. The points may even be fine but the conclusion might not always be true either !

This drilling translates into every single LR question type...

Laabradir33

Thanks guys for the advice !!

Cant Get Right

Great advice on these all around. I concur that pre phrasing--which I think is not a great practice generally--is particularly bad on Strengthen/Weaken questions. I go into the answers as a skeptical advocate. I try to make each answer work, really thinking creatively to try and see how I may can affect the argument. With this, you've just got to make sure you're not justifying something ridiculous to yourself, which is definitely a real possibility, lol. Hence the skepticism.

Laabradir33

@"Cant Get Right" said:
I try to make each answer work, really thinking creatively to try and see how I may can affect the argument.

Totally agree with u on this. Some of the answer choices may seem totally out of scope so I just cross it out at first, but turns out to be the answer(alternate cause/explanation)