Most vulnerable to criticism, in need of solidifying

Luis89011

This is one of the last LR type im having issues with and need some guidance. I see this stem, read the stimulus and see five answer choices that say overlooks the possibility and this is where the oscillation comes in. Lol. And I see the core, where there is premise&conclusion, and just like the weaken/support questions we attack the support? All help is appreciated.

LSATPuppy

Hi Luis,

Do you have an example question? Can you post the # and maybe I can take a stab at helping you

LSATisland

'Vulnerable to criticism' questions are kind of like 'weaken' questions. You are identifying the issue that is weak. It can be an assumption the argument is making, or an appeal to authority, or mistaking % for numbers, etc...

As LSATPuppy wrote, it might be helpful to post one of the questions that was difficult for you. Using it as an example might explain the process in a clearer way.

David Wayne

I'd like to add my two cents to this one. When you see "overlooks the possibility" , try to think of it as a weakening question. Its simply raising a possible scenario in which the premises do not support the conclusion as strongly. Try not to think of all 'flaw' questions as falling into the traditional flaw categories (for instance, inferring causation from correlation, or inferring B->A when all you are given is A->B). It can just be asking for a point of vulnerability in an argument that doesn't transgress any of our standard flaws, but rather is just generally weak. In this sense, vulnerable to criticism questions are indeed quite similar to weakening questions, as lsatisland has pointed out.

jsumlin23

I have trouble with these questions too. They are very hard for me. If you do enough of them they get a bit easier.

Luis89011

Im finally coming around on these, this is how I think of them in case anybody reads this. PP -> C
In between the support, I think well have you ever thought that this might happen, or this might happen?, an additional premise that would weaken the argument.