PT78.S3.Q26 - although the production costs

stcaitmokyustcaitmokyu Free Trial Member
edited September 2016 in Logical Reasoning 68 karma
I was not sure about D at first because I thought what happened in the past may not be true always...what happened in the past cannot always apply to what would happen in the future.
Why it works as weakener?


  • Cant Get RightCant Get Right Monthly + Live Member Sage 🍌 7Sage Tutor
    27529 karma
    You're totally correct that we can't assume that what was true in the past will remain true. But it does set an unfortunate precedent for our film director's argument. What makes strengthen and weaken questions so difficult is that there are very different degrees to which it can apply to the argument. Does answer choice D destroy this argument? Absolutely not. But we don't need to destroy it, we only need to weaken it. So even though your observation about the past's relevancy to the future is true, this still weakens the argument even if it's not by much.
  • stcaitmokyustcaitmokyu Free Trial Member
    68 karma's interesting because this kind of reasoning is "flaw" right? I saw a lot in flaw questions...
    But it can be used as a weakener?
    I think that's confused me...while it's flaw, it can be used as weakener?
  • CalPoliSciCalPoliSci Member
    236 karma
    I think the difference is that this weakens is a premise. We are supposed to interpret answer choices in strengthen/weaken as an additional premise. When the LSAT presents it as a flaw, it's the reasoning or the conclusion.
  • stcaitmokyustcaitmokyu Free Trial Member
    68 karma
    Do you mean...Weakener and Strengthener are all premises?
    So...the conclusion in that case is against the conclusion in the argument right?
    But in that case how is it different from flaw? If we use it as aa premise and lead to a conclusion which is against the conclusion in the stimulus, wouldn't it mean the reasoning is flawed?
Sign In or Register to comment.