Weakening questions

Trouble88

I am really struggling with weakening questions anyone have any tips or can lend any help to help me over come this?

glauconn

Sure! The important thing to remember is that the question stem in weakening questions always say "Which one of the following IF TRUE"

Meaning that we accept the answers as true. That's the first step.

Secondly, you are going to want to go ahead identify the conclusion.

After that, you identify the premise(s) of the argument.

Once you have an understanding of how the argument is moving from the premises to the conclusion, that's when you start attacking the answers.

Important note:Your goal is not to weaken the conclusion. Your goal is to weaken the reasoning BETWEEN the premises and the conclusion.

For example, if it is a causal argument where the conclusion is "X thing causes Y thing", the most common weakening answer is something that gives you an alternative explanation for the cause and effect relationship in the stimulus.

Other than that, keep drilling with problem sets, and make sure to check out the 7sage explanations! Let me know if you have any specific questions you struggle with; I got a 177 on the LSAT

Arete_Southbay

@gluconn's comments is on point, well said.

Assume that all five answers are true.
The correct answer will give you new evidence that makes you doubt the conclusion without directly contradicting the evidence stated in the passage. See the New Evidence lesson below.

If you’re debating between two answers that both hurt the conclusion, pick the one that hurts more. That often means choosing the answer that uses stronger wording, such as all or most rather than some or many. The content of each answer, though, matters much more than the word strength, so focus on the content first. Once you’re satisfied that the answer is relevant, then turn your focus to its strength.

For more strong words, check out the Word Strength lesson above.
In an except question, the correct answer will either strengthen the conclusion or do nothing. To make things easier, simply cross out the answers that weaken the conclusion, even slightly.

The correct answer will give you new evidence that makes you doubt the conclusion without directly contradicting the evidence stated in the passage.

Consider this argument:

Partner John will be a good fit at our firm because he has worked at two other prestigious law firms.

The correct answer might say something like:
(B) John worked at both firms for only two months.

This new evidence doesn’t contradict the premises—he still worked at two prestigious law firms—but it does cast doubt on the conclusion that he would be a good fit by raising a potential problem.

Here’s another potentially correct answer:
(C) John recently broke up with Sally, our firm’s managing partner.

Again, this evidence doesn’t contradict the premises, but it does cast doubt on whether he’s a good fit.

Notice, too, that this answer is unrelated to the original premises; it has nothing to do with his previous work experience. So don’t skip an answer just because it doesn’t address the points raised in the original argument. As long as it casts doubt on the main conclusion, it’s a possible answer.

Martianman

I just think “break the link!” In my head, the link being the premise and conclusion relationship. Other explanations above are more thorough

Trouble88

Thank you all for the comments, break the link is a vital factor!