Weaken Questions

mayamdurham

I am struggling so hard in these. Does anyone have any pointers?? I feel like I'm so close sometimes, then during BR I change my right answer to the wrong one! Or, of course I just get it wrong 100% and am totally lost. HELP

mr.michaelgsavard-1-1-1-1-1

Weaken questions are pretty formulaic, but some can be extremely tough.
1)identify the conclusion of the argument
2)identify the premises
3)predict a hole/assumption between the premises and the conclusion
4)eliminate wrong answer choices. remember that the right answer choice will not contradict a premise. rather, the right answer choice will add some new information into the argument that the conclusion didn't account for.

Lawyer_Loading

SOMEONE WROTE THIS ON THE WEAKING SECTION AND THIS HAS HELPED ME GET A LOT BETTER. I KNOW ITS A LOT BUT IT IS WORTH THE READING AND PUTTING THIS INTO PRACTICE.

Here’s some notes I’ve gathered from J.Y., other 7Sagers, and my personal experience on how to approach weakening questions.

How to Approach Weakening Questions
You should always accept all the premises from the stimulus as true, and weaken the support (or connection) between the premise and the conclusion. In other words, the correct answer choice that weakens the argument will be the one in which you’ve accepted all the premises from the stimulus, but you no longer want to accept the conclusion. You no longer want to accept the conclusion because you’ve found new information that weakens the support between the original premise(s) and the conclusion. This new information (aka the correct answer choice) introduces a new idea that addresses an assumption the stimulus strategically left out.

For example:
P: Jon loves peanut butter and he also loves jelly.
C: Therefore, Jon must also love peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
Correct answer choice that weakens the argument: Jon is allergic to wheat and does not eat bread.

Thought process:
Premise: Jon likes PB&J. Ok, cool.
Conclusion: Since he likes PB&J, he must also like PB&J sandwiches. Hmmm, but how could we be so sure?
What are some assumptions the author is making? Well, we don’t know if Jon likes peanut butter and jelly together. What if he only likes peanut butter on apples? Also, we don’t know if Jon likes bread? In order for the conclusion to be valid that Jon likes PB&J sandwiches, the author assumes that Jon also likes bread. But we were never told that. In other words, that was never a premise introduced in the stimulus. Therefore Jon liking bread is a weak link, an unverified assumption. Let’s check the answer choices and see if any of them introduce any new information about Jon that addresses this assumption.

So what did we do here? We’ve accepted the premises from the stimulus as true that Jon loves peanut butter and jelly, BUT we anticipated an assumption the author made and then found an AC that addresses that assumption by introducing new information that weakens (or attacks) the support between the premises and the conclusion. This new information is that Jon does not eat bread. The author’s conclusion rests upon the assumption that Jon likes bread. But, if Jon does not even eat bread, then how could he possibly like PB&J sandwiches? Bingo. We have successfully weakened the support between the original premise and the conclusion.

This thought process should become an instinctual habit: why is it that although the original premises are true, they still do not guarantee the conclusion from the stimulus?

So what exactly does it mean to weaken (or attack) the support between the premise(s) and the conclusion?
You can conceptualize weakening questions with the following set up: “premise X, therefore conclusion Y.” The correct answer choice will never be “Not X” or “Not Y” (these are traps) because we should approach these questions leaving the original premise(s) and conclusions as untouched; in other words, we should accept the stimulus as true. So, instead, the correct answer choice will support this structure: “Yes, premise X is true, BUT assumption Z exists.” And because assumption Z exists, this assumption Z weakens the relationship between X and Y, calling us to doubt the validity of the original conclusion. Assumption Z = new information that introduces an idea that addresses an assumption the stimulus strategically left out. The correct answer choice will be the one that addresses assumption Z and disproves or negates it, calling into question the power of the relationship between the original premise(s) and conclusion. An example assumption Z: Jon likes bread. Example answer choice that addresses assumption Z: Jon is allergic to wheat and does not eat bread. So, with this in mind, the relationship between the premise and conclusion is now weakened, and we no longer want to accept the original conclusion (Jon likes PB&J sandwiches).

Ultimately, the support is often lacking because of some assumption the argument is making. So get into the habit of asking yourself, “what assumption is the argument making?” In other words, what information is being left out of the stimulus that could totally change how we view the connection between the premise(s) and the conclusion? Also, you can think about causation to understand where the support is lacking (causation is covered in a later lesson).

Sometimes you’ll be able to anticipate the assumptions. There are many potential assumptions to anticipate, some more obvious than others. However, if one of the assumptions you’ve anticipated is not one of the answer choices, no worries. Follow the steps below and you’ll be confident that you’ve identified the correct answer choice.

Steps:
0) Identify the question stem. Take special note if the question says weaken EXCEPT, these ones are tricky and I have additional for these EXCEPT in the last section of this comment.
1) Identify premise(s) and conclusion and simplify the argument. To check your understanding, you can rephrase the premise(s) and conclusion in your own words. There are some key words in the stimulus that can change the meaning or provide greater context and if overlooked, you may not fully understand the stimulus, making it difficult to identify the correct answer choice.
2) Anticipate assumptions the author has made (assumption Z). What has the author conveniently left out or unaddressed that could change how we believe in the connection between the premise(s) and the conclusion? Example assumption Z: Jon likes bread.
3) Look at the answer choices. The correct answer choice will be the one that addresses assumption Z and disproves or negates it. Example AC that addresses assumption Z: Jon is allergic to wheat and does not eat bread.

When you go through the answer choices, you can also ask yourself: “If this answer choice is true, what are the implications? Do the implications actually weaken the support between the original premise(s) and conclusion?” You may hesitate to select an answer choice (that ultimately is the correct one) because you do not fully understand what the AC is saying (this has happened to me plenty of times). Do not disregard an AC just because you are unsure what it means—take the time to really understand it and simplify the AC in your own words before you completely disregard or select it.
Another way to think about the correct answer choice is: the correct answer choice will provide support for the negation of the main conclusion. For example, if the main conclusion is: Jon likes PB&J sandwiches, then the correct answer choice will provide support for the idea that Jon does NOT like PB&J sandwiches.

Types of Answer Choices You’ll See for Weakening Questions
1) Strengthening — these answer choices strengthen the argument instead of weaken it
2) Additional Premises — additional info that adds detail, context, implications, or irrelevant facts. When I read these ACs I usually just think: “okkk, and?” & “so, what?” The majority of answer choices will be this type, and you could check if an AC is simply an additional premise by “inserting” that AC into the stimulus as if the original authors included it in the stimulus; and if the conclusion is at least just as strong as it was before, then that AC is simply an additional premise.
3) Contradicts the Premise — “Not X” these answer choices do not accept the premise from the stimulus as true; they are alternate premises that directly contradict the original premise (a trap!)
4) Weakens — accepts all the premises from the stimulus as true, and weakens the support (or connection) between the premise and the conclusion by introducing a new idea that addresses an assumption the stimulus strategically left out.

Weaken EXCEPT questions:
For these types of questions, if an answer choice weakens the argument, to any extent, then do not select it! It does not have to be the strongest weakening case—it could barely weaken the argument—but if the AC weakens the argument at all, then do not choose it for weaken EXCEPT questions.
Weaken EXCEPT questions are tricky because you may mentally think the correct answer choice strengthens the argument, and so you look at the answer choices with this lens. However, potential correct answer choices for weaken EXCEPT questions could be any of the following: strengthens, neutral, or irrelevant to the argument.
Always read the question stem first, and you can highlight EXCEPT, put your finger on the word, and/or write it down to remind yourself you are dealing with an EXCEPT question. As you go through the answer choices, circle the questions that weaken the argument and/or write “W” besides the answer choice or “A, W” “B, W” etc. in your notebook. As you go through this process, you’ll narrow the AC down to the one that does NOT weaken the argument. That AC could strengthen the argument, be neutral to the argument, or is simply irrelevant to the argument.
A tricky, but good practice weaken EXCEPT question is “The Embezzler” (preptest 32, section 1, question 17).