Weaken Questions

naikreena47

Whats the best strategy to deal with questions that relate to weakening questions on logical reasoning? I keep getting those wrong and I don't know how to approach them. Thanks!

c.janson35

Always always always identify the conclusion and the support and ask yourself "why doesn't this add up?" A valid argument is something that must be 100% true, and on the LSAT, as in life, this is a difficult standard to meet. A lot of times the answer to your question "why doesn't this add up?" will lead you directly to the flaw, and even if it doesn't, it still gets your thought processes going in the right direction.

It may also be useful to employ the technique the LSAT Trainer uses; that is, after identifying the conclusion and premises, form your rebuttal in terms of: "the argument takes for granted that ___________", "the argument fails to consider that__________", or "the argument overlooks the possibility that __________".

Aiesha G.

For these questions, elimination is a very powerful tool. At least one answer uses very strong language such as all, only, or never that the original argument didn't necessarily state, another answer will be unrelated to the argument (bring in new info that was not mentioned in the argument but does not affect it one way or the other because this isn't what the argument is concerned about), one will strengthen it, and the last is likely to be a restated premise.

I approach these questions first by finding the flaw ( most of the time it is easy to see but sometimes the correct answer choice helps me identify it) and focus on how the correct answer SHOULD relate to the flaw. Only one answer will do it so this method is helpful if you aren't sure exactly what the flaw is but you understand the relationship that the answer choice should have as far as relating to it. For example, a fail to consider flaw in the argument will be presented in the answer choice as a new possibility or other piece of information that would cause the conclusion to be questionable.

emli1000

Find the premise & conclusion and look for the gap between their support. Whatever AC you pick, if you add it to the stimulus it will make your premises less supportive of the conclusion.

nicole.hopkins

Ultimately weakening is about exploiting an inherent weakness in an argument. There will already be a flaw or a gap, as @c.janson35 discussed. You're looking for that achilles heel and the AC that best exploits it.