Strengthen/Weaken Q-type

Darth Jurist

I have a question regarding strengthen and weaken questions: If I am stuck between two AC's, could I simply try to put both of them into the argument, one at a time, and see which strengthen/weakens more?

MrSamIam

Certainly. In fact, I believe that's how most people do it. More often than not, one of the ACs will weaken the argument, while the other of the two will do absolutely nothing, or at the very most it'll simply flick the argument - AS J.Y. likes to say, the correct AC will punch the argument right in the face.
Don't fall into the trap of trying to compare the two ACs to each other. There are times where doing so can help. However, for the most part you are better off making sure that you understand exactly what the stimulus is saying, taking the first AC and seeing what it does, and doing the same with the second. Whichever weakens the stimulus more is the correct AC.

The same concept applies with strengthening question. However, instead of punching the argument v. flicking it, one will either do nothing or will simply give it a tiny boost v. the other which will give it a huge boost, or at least a larger boost than the former.

twssmith

HI! Could you share what stage of prep you are in and give a PT question/example of when you might want to employ this strategy? I am happy to help but not quite sure how to respond given the time constraints of the test and possibly supporting a "crutch" that could lead to bad habits and undermining your ability to reach your goals:)

Darth Jurist

@MrSamIam Thanks! I believe I am trying to compare the last two AC and that might be where I get my wires crossed. I will try the aforementioned method.

@twssmith I am just barely scratching the surface of the 7Sage core curriculum, but have been through the entire PS LR bible. Some of these weaken questions are troubling me.

For example: LSAT Prep Test 24 (December 1997) - S2 - Question 20.

I still do not understand why B is the correct AC. I chose E, out of process of elimination, and can see how it does in fact weaken the argument. I’m really confused how B does not weaken the argument. It seems as though this stimulus is very vague and open to many assumptions. How could technology not expose one of those assumptions and punch it in the face (i.e. weaken the argument)? If technology makes it so all values among cultures universal, wouldn’t that essentially cut off the support to the author’s conclusion?

Another example: LSAT Prep Test 21 (December 1996) - S3 - Question 23

Wouldn’t answer choice C technically strengthen the argument? Basically, I am totally lost on this Q.

These weaken questions punch me in the face. The latter questions sets in the Weaken module were crazy hard.

runiggyrun

Hi @"Darth Jurist" - yes, fitting the answer choice between the premises and the conclusion should help identify the correct answer, but you still have to have a very good command of what the premises are telling/not telling you and what the conclusion is.
A very common trap for weaken/strengthen questions is that wrong AC's either strengthen/weaken the premises, or strengthen/weaken the conclusion (usually by adding extra premises that are not part of the original argument for strengthen or opposing premises not part of the original argument for weaken).
If your argument is "we have A, therefore B", and the AC says "we also have C therefore B", that's irrelevant to the argument, because you're not strengthening the link between A and B, but rather supporting B by other means.
About the examples:
For PT24, S2, Q20, there's a subtle change between the conclusion "as long as there are different cultures there are no shared values" and answer B "we will all share the same culture and same values". That's what makes B irrelevant to the argument - it's talking about a time where there are no different cultures, and that's not what our conclusion is concerned with.
For PT21, S3, Q23 - You might be mistaken about what the conclusion of the argument is (I'm speculating here). The conclusion is "the music lovers are wrong in thinking best vacuum tubes sound better than best solid states". Rephrased to be "best vacuum tubes don't sound better that best solid states". Support is "all the measurements done by engineers show them to be identical".
Your mind should immediately go to "what if the human ear can distinguish something these engineers didn't measure? Then it would be possible that they do sound better, so the music lovers are not wrong". Answer C is pretty much exactly that.
I hope these answers make sense.

Darth Jurist

@runiggyrun said:
answer B "we will all share the same culture and same values"

I think I get it now. The tricky part with this problem was that I had circled all 5 AC's and wasn't really sure what to do from there. In retrospect, I think B actually kind of strengthens. Because the stimulus is only talking about distinct cultures at the present time and B talks about the future of technology leading to shared cultures, it is basically saying: hey, distinct culutures don't allow for shared values and technology will lead to cultures being less distinct and more open to shared values.

Is my rationale correct?

@runiggyrun said:
"what if the human ear can distinguish something these engineers didn't measure? Then it would be possible that they do sound better, so the music lovers are not wrong"

My mind did not instantly ask this question. To be honest, I'm not sure how I would? I am not an engineer or expert on the science of sounds. I did in fact ID the conclusion and fell to the trap answer choice B. J.Y. explains it as we are only concerned with the best amplifiers, not amplifiers in general. Again, how am I supposed to distinguish between the two. AC B does not specify to only the best, but can we not say that 'some' of them are the best and, thus, likely to experience the same fluctuation in sound quality?

It came down to AC's B and C, I did not choose B because I was unaware that their were measures of sound quality that can be measured by sound engineers and not able to be measured. I guess I am not sure how I am supposed to just know about this discrepancy without prior knowledge of the science behind sounds. Plus, how do we know the measurements done by the engineers do not include a human ear as a type of apparatus for testing the sound quality (I would think they do that if they want their amplifiers to be the 'best').

MrSamIam

@"Darth Jurist"
Sure thing! Here's my analysis of 20:

Anthropologists believe: Distinct culture = No shared values between cultures. Why? Because some study they did found that different cultures = different moral codes. As soon as I see "study" I ask myself, "Did they conduct it properly?" Especially given that they studied different, presumably foreign, cultures!

A) Inadequate translation techniques? Well wonderful, for all I know half of the cultures had shared values but these "genius" anthropologists did a crummy job of translating what they were told. This attacks the merit of the study, which is what the anthropologists are basing their beliefs on.

Completely irrelevant. We will SOMEDAY...? Who cares what will happen in the future? The question asks you to weaken the statement. The statement is about current findings...not potential (future) findings. Also notice that the stimulus qualifies it's statement. "As long as..." Answer choice B says that the "As long as" (sufficient) condition won't be met. So, if you were to present AC B to the anthropologists, they would laugh and say, "Well, we said 'as long as X happens' but X isn't happening...so we weren't wrong."

C) Ah, so there are SOME shared principles. The stimulus says there aren't any - we have to make a small assumption, that moral principles = moral codes...which is fair.

D) Well if they have a bias towards finding differences and not similarities, than how do I know that they didn't intentionally leave out some information - information that would suggest that there are similarities in moral codes between cultures. Normally we wouldn't attack the source, but AC D still gives me reason to question their findings.

E) The stimulus bases it's statement on the notion that these cultures display differences in moral codes. Then assumes that different cultures => Different values. But, AC E tells us that different values doesn't actually = different values. Instead, different values = different beliefs in how to live in accordance with shared values. This leaves open the possibility that there can be different cultures who share certain values.
Ex: Culture 1 believes that chickens are mystical creatures that should never be harmed. Culture 2 believes that chickens are mystical creatures that should never be harmed. They share this value. However, culture 1 will eat the eggs of chickens - those pesky chicks don't count. But, culture 2 will not. That certainly isn't a perfect example, but I think you get the point.

stepharizona

@MrSamIam said:
Certainly. In fact, I believe that's how most people do it.

Agree this strategy also works really well for most questions, I see to get the most benefit using it for SA and NA questions as well. The strategy can go out the window if you dont practice is in your timed prep. The good thing is the more you do it, it will become second nature.

runiggyrun

Oh, I'm by no means an engineer or an expert. But I do have some relatives who are, and they think they can measure everything and have all the answers, so I kind of instinctively didn't trust those engineers in the stimulus. Especially when they are applying their math to art.
I don't think you need to know that there are unmeasurable parameters, just be open to the possibility that there might be.
I can't remember if it was JY or somebody in the forums that said that a good trick for questions in the "flaw" category is to imagine that the argument is made by your least favorite presidential candidate. Even if they don't distort the facts (the LSAT writers are superior to politicians in that respect), they are always trying to pull a fast one on you and overreach with their conclusions, and you have to be on the lookout for gaps in their reasoning.

For the remaining answers, you are mentioning B, but from the clues you're giving sounds more like you're talking about E (that's the one that says that some vacuum tubes are better than some solid states). If it's E, then the shift from BEST to SOME is a bread and butter trick for trap answers. Whenever they shift like that you can be highly suspicious that you're looking at a trap.
A real life example of the difference:
The best electric cars are as fast to achieve 60mph speeds as the best gasoline cars. Therefore if you want the car with the best 0-60 acceleration, it doesn't matter whether you choose the best electric or the best gasoline (let's say a Tesla or a Ferrari).
Now answer E would say: some gasoline cars are much better than some electric cars. Does that weaken the conclusion that if you chose the best of each they are the same? No. Who cares that an Audi is faster than a Chevy Volt? We're filthy rich here, and we only care about the best.
Incidentally, answer B has the same type of flaw. The conclusion only cares about the best, so the range of quality between the best and the worst is irrelevant.

Now, for the cultures question - the future tense in the technology answer was what made me eliminate it initially, but I think without the "same culture" clause it would be difficult to eliminate it as confidently, because the conclusion does say "as long as" which could be read to be "in the present and the future". But they did put the "same culture" clause in, because the LSAT writers are absolutely awesome at what they do, and their job is to make the wrong answers wrong beyond any reasonable doubt, a task they accomplish 99.9% of the time. I might not be able to identify them as such nearly as often, but one can always dream....

You're still just starting out, and you're approaching questions critically, so you're on the right track. The dirty tricks of wrong answers will become more and more obvious with practice.

Darth Jurist

@MrSamIam Wow, thank you for the thorough explanation. That further explained the proper reasoning and really made this question more understandable. You are a rockstar!

@runiggyrun I see what you are getting at now. AC C might be a weird sort of weaken AC, but, it does in fact weaken the argument if taken as a true statement. Now that makes senses. Sure, it could be completely irrelevant in the real world, but based solely on what is being said in the stimulus, it would most definitely weaken the argument. I think that AC B still does weaken the argument, just not a significantly as AC C. Seeing the 'if true' part of the stem makes it a bit more clear. I think what go was the fact that it did not specify which types of amplifiers it was referring to. Had they include the word 'best' it might be a little bit better AC, but still not as good as C.

Thanks everyone, I feel like I made progress today.

Now my head hurts :P lol.

MrSamIam

@"Darth Jurist" Glad you got it! As always, feel free to post if the LSAT ever throws you a curve ball...and it will :]