Looking for methods about weakening questions

fengx346

Hey guys,
I'm looking for the help about weakening questions, this type of questions really makes me frustrated. I could find the premises and conclusions, but I'm confused about supports between them. And every time I do this type of questions, the AC often sway me away. Are there any methods to practice these questions or any advice? I'll really appreciate for that.

LSATisJustLikeDarkSouls

There aren't really any tips and tricks for the LSAT.... maybe the negation technique for NA questions but that's the only one I know that works. If the ACs are throwing you off do not read them until you completely understand the stimulus and can make predictions on what the correct AC might be. Cover the ACs until you're ready.

keets993

Is there a specific question or two that's really bothering you? Maybe we could analyze that together

Earlier on in my studies, I came up with this example to help me understand how support works on the LSAT in respect to weakening questions: Pretend you are a lawyer for the defense and the client is accused of murder (conclusion) because their fingerprints were found on the knife (premise). You cannot attack/contradict the premise that the client's fingerprints were on the knife but you can look for a reason why their fingerprints would be on the knife that would throw the conclusion (that they are the murderer) into doubt. For example, the prints were planted; the defendant tried to help the victim; etc. It's not a perfect analogy but the ones on the LSAT never are

It's important to remember that you're not always wrecking the argument as you would in NA when you negate the answer choice but just trying to cast doubt on it. Pretend that as you read it, there's a 60% chance likelihood it's true. You just need to bring that down a little, maybe even 59%.

As for getting swayed by the answer choices, well that's exactly what the writers are trying to do! You need to analyze why it's working on you. Sometimes, they bring up information that sounds true and is true of the real world but it doesn't actually do anything to weaken the support for the conclusion. Maybe it could be that causation questions are a weakness and you're more likely to fall prey to them. I've found that some attractive trap answer choices are also those that bait you into making further assumptions in order for that answer choice to be correct. Correct AC's could be thought of as counterexamples.

Hope that helps!

fengx346

@keets993 Thank you for your reply. This is really helpful! I found why I couldn't find the connection between premises and conclusions. Thanks!

fengx346

@LSATisJustLikeDarkSouls Thank you!! I think I need to spend more time on analyzing the questions and anticipate the answers.