[Help] RRE - Weakening Questions

d_114400

JY mentioned that a good way to approach RRE Questions would be to view them as weakening questions by negating the last premise / including a new conclusion and then finding the AC that most weakens the new argument.

While this works for regular RRE questions, i'm struggling to apply the method to EXCEPT questions and questions in which there isn't a paradox.

Any advice would be extremely appreciated as this is the question type I struggle with the most.

sarakimmel

With EXCEPT questions, you are being asked to eliminate the 4 ACs that would, say, weaken the argument. If you can repeat the process you are already doing for RRE, just tweak it such that you are now eliminating those weakening ACs, you will start to see the correct ACs are neutral-strengthening, or introduce new info and the like. I hope that is helpful, I know I have struggled with EXCEPT questions as well, it takes practice for sure! Good studying!

FindingSage

I remember JY doing a podcast episode regarding RRE questions a long time ago and I remember it being helpful. I do remember him also mentioning an exercise to help people understand these questions by turning them into weaken questions which was also helpful to encourage people not to look at an LR stimuli with such rigidity that students feel like just because something is a strengthen question or an RRE question that they are unable to be successful because of question type. The truth is that when you see an invalid argument on the LSAT, the LSAT writers could in theory ask you multiple questions- like what is the necessary assumption of the argument, what is the main conclusion, how would you strengthen ect. It really opened my eyes to see how powerful a solid understanding of the stimulus is.
Now, here is where I caution you. During a timed test, there is no way I would be looking to weaken the conclusion of an RRE question. For the most part RRE questions don't even have conclusions so you are doing unnecessary work of creating a conclusion and trying to create an argument where there is none. Here is what I would recommend doing instead:

• Read the stimulus/ fact set carefully. You should accept whatever statements you read as true. Your job here is to identify the point of tension or paradox. You should then be able to identify the paradox in your own words.

Then, quickly think of an idea or two that might help you resolve this paradox. In easier questions, you will often find that your prediction is correct ( with practice of course). In harder question the LSAT writers may think of a way to resolve the paradox with something you hadn't thought of or more arcane language. For except questions, which you mentioned struggling with, having your own quick prediction or predictions will help you a lot, because you may easily identify one or two of the answer choices and be able to quickly eliminate.

The correct answer choice needs to explain the mystery or paradox. If it creates additional questions, or you have to tell a story to make it work- it is wrong. If it the paradox or point of tension still stands with no explanation it is also wrong. Learning to identify the paradox in your own words and making a prediction will help you simplify these questions. Also, Powerscore just did a podcast on RRE questions which may be helpful. Towards the end of the episode they go through an actual RRE except question, which you can try to practice the methods described and see if you can answer first, and then listen you their point of view and see if you were on track.