Some tough LR questions WRECK Premise. When does this happen/Cookie cutters for this?

youbbyun

Hey all,

So i know like 90% of LR weaken and other questions attack relationship btw premise and conclusion.

But some actually attack the premise. I just did PT 48.4.23 -- it's a weaken EXCEPT question, and one of the weaken answer choices just wrecked the premise. the question is correlation causation, but one one weaken answer choice just said that the correlation actually doesn't exist (effectively wrecking one of the premises).

I've done a couple other weaken questions where they go after the premise.

What are some of the traits of questions/arguments/stimuluses where the premise is attacked?

is it just for correlation/causation questions -- where you can wreck the correlation? or is it also for survey/data questions, where you can just wreck the survey/data?

Any advice or suggestions would be appreciated.

thank you!

eRetaker

Hi @username_hello , I know what you mean in terms of weaken questions that attack the premise. I asked someone else this in the past when I encountered questions with answer choices that attacked the premise rather than the gap between the premise-conclusion. His response was that you can only attack the premise in a Weaken question or a Flaw question, but you can never attack a premise in a strengthen question for example. I don't remember his reasoning for it, but I wouldn't worry about it. These questions are so rare that I think I've only seen two total over my entire period studying. In your particular example 48.4.23 though, I don't think any of the answer choices actually attack the premise.

youbbyun

@eRetaker said:
Hi @username_hello , I know what you mean in terms of weaken questions that attack the premise. I asked someone else this in the past when I encountered questions with answer choices that attacked the premise rather than the gap between the premise-conclusion. His response was that you can only attack the premise in a Weaken question or a Flaw question, but you can never attack a premise in a strengthen question for example. I don't remember his reasoning for it, but I wouldn't worry about it. These questions are so rare that I think I've only seen two total over my entire period studying. In your particular example 48.4.23 though, I don't think any of the answer choices actually attack the premise.

thanks for following up! i think AC A in 48.4.23 attacks the premise. it's basically saying that correlation that we thought existed (a premise) -- it actually doesn't exist.

FixedDice

What are some of the traits of questions/arguments/stimuluses where the premise is attacked?

is it just for correlation/causation questions -- where you can wreck the correlation? or is it also for survey/data questions, where you can just wreck the survey/data?

Weaken Except questions are the only questions where attacking premises is A-OK. Otherwise, avoid attacking premises like the plague unless you are out of options.

eRetaker

@username_hello ahh I see what you mean now. Answer choice A does certainly put the premise in doubt. But I would echo @FixedDice advice on making it a last option. Furthermore, I think in general these types of questions are easy enough that you would be able to pick out a clear answer such as D in this case. Hopefully you won't have to deal with this choice on test day lol

Jonathan Wang

@username_hello said:
thanks for following up! i think AC A in 48.4.23 attacks the premise. it's basically saying that correlation that we thought existed (a premise) -- it actually doesn't exist.

A doesn't deny the premise at all. The premise says in general, the most efficient managers have excellent time management skills - time management correlates with efficiency. A says that we use the same metric to measure both things, so of course the results will be the same. How does that deny the correlation? If anything, it accepts the correlation and gives a pretty darn good explanation for why it exists.

If I tell you that I think my friend Tom is smart and also that he's prepared for law school, and the basis for both of those opinions is that he scored 180 on the LSAT, am I denying that a correlation exists between being smart and being prepared for law school? How could I be, when I'm literally pointing out that the basis for both opinions is the exact same thing?

@FixedDice said:
Weaken Except questions are the only questions where attacking premises is A-OK. Otherwise, avoid attacking premises like the plague unless you are out of options.

Why would they allow you to attack a premise in a weaken except question, but turn around and disallow it on a regular weaken question? What is the theoretical basis for this switcharoo? The question stem is literally saying "4 of these weaken, the fifth one doesn't, find that one". Why would those four choices that they just claimed weakened the argument suddenly be wrong if I turned the question into a 'normal' weaken question?

@eRetaker said:
Hi @username_hello , I know what you mean in terms of weaken questions that attack the premise. I asked someone else this in the past when I encountered questions with answer choices that attacked the premise rather than the gap between the premise-conclusion. His response was that you can only attack the premise in a Weaken question or a Flaw question, but you can never attack a premise in a strengthen question for example.

I don't know why you would even attempt to attack a premise in a strengthen question; seems counterproductive. Aside from that, same question for you - what is the theoretical basis for allowing students to attack premises sometimes, but not all the time?

When you weaken or strengthen arguments, you deal with the support relationship and only the support relationship. I promise you that every single time you disagree, you are the one misinterpreting the impact of that answer choice on the argument. You are not allowed to attack premises on the LSAT, period, end of story.

lsat4life

@"Jonathan Wang" said:

@username_hello said:
thanks for following up! i think AC A in 48.4.23 attacks the premise. it's basically saying that correlation that we thought existed (a premise) -- it actually doesn't exist.

A doesn't deny the premise at all. The premise says in general, the most efficient managers have excellent time management skills - time management correlates with efficiency. A says that we use the same metric to measure both things, so of course the results will be the same. How does that deny the correlation? If anything, it accepts the correlation and gives a pretty darn good explanation for why it exists.

If I tell you that I think my friend Tom is smart and also that he's prepared for law school, and the basis for both of those opinions is that he scored 180 on the LSAT, am I denying that a correlation exists between being smart and being prepared for law school? How could I be, when I'm literally pointing out that the basis for both opinions is the exact same thing?

@FixedDice said:
Weaken Except questions are the only questions where attacking premises is A-OK. Otherwise, avoid attacking premises like the plague unless you are out of options.

Why would they allow you to attack a premise in a weaken except question, but turn around and disallow it on a regular weaken question? What is the theoretical basis for this switcharoo? The question stem is literally saying "4 of these weaken, the fifth one doesn't, find that one". Why would those four choices that they just claimed weakened the argument suddenly be wrong if I turned the question into a 'normal' weaken question?

@eRetaker said:
Hi @username_hello , I know what you mean in terms of weaken questions that attack the premise. I asked someone else this in the past when I encountered questions with answer choices that attacked the premise rather than the gap between the premise-conclusion. His response was that you can only attack the premise in a Weaken question or a Flaw question, but you can never attack a premise in a strengthen question for example.

I don't know why you would even attempt to attack a premise in a strengthen question; seems counterproductive. Aside from that, same question for you - what is the theoretical basis for allowing students to attack premises sometimes, but not all the time?

When you weaken or strengthen arguments, you deal with the support relationship and only the support relationship. I promise you that every single time you disagree, you are the one misinterpreting the impact of that answer choice on the argument. You are not allowed to attack premises on the LSAT, period, end of story.

What do you think about PT75 Section 3, #13, Answer choice C? And PT66, Section 2, #1, Answer choice E?

FixedDice

@"Jonathan Wang" said:

@FixedDice said:
Weaken Except questions are the only questions where attacking premises is A-OK. Otherwise, avoid attacking premises like the plague unless you are out of options.

Why would they allow you to attack a premise in a weaken except question, but turn around and disallow it on a regular weaken question? What is the theoretical basis for this switcharoo? The question stem is literally saying "4 of these weaken, the fifth one doesn't, find that one". Why would those four choices that they just claimed weakened the argument suddenly be wrong if I turned the question into a 'normal' weaken question?

My basis for that claim comes from PTB.S1.Q19, a Strengthen question. A premise discusses 1.2-billion-year-old rocks. Answer choice (E) mentions that a scientific test confirms the age of the rocks is indeed 1.2 billion years, thereby strengthening the premise and the conclusion (per the LSAC's official explanation).

Granted, a Strengthen question isn't exactly a Weaken question, and I believe I have yet to see a Weaken Except question involving a premise-weakening answer. However, a Strengthen Except question seems to be capable of being quite forgiving, to the point it counts a premise-strengthening answer choice as an incorrect answer. Since Weaken and Strengthen questions work similarly, couldn't we apply the same logic to a yet-to-be-seen Weaken Except question? Besides, there is at least one relatively recent instance where a premise-weakening answer choice is the correct answer for a Weaken question; JY claims so (PT75.S3.Q13).

It is vanishingly rare; I would avoid it like a starved bear unless I'm absolutely, absolutely out of options. But it doesn't seem to be an unequivocally wrong option either. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong.

lsat4life

bumping this for feedback. Jonathan Wang never replied!