Hi! I'm having some major troubles with assumption and "which will weaken the argument" questions...any tips would REALLY be appreciated at this point!
For assumption questions, I know that if the answer is false and the argument falls apart, then that answer is correct but I can't really seem to have enough time to do that for every response.
For weaken the argument questions, I'm not sure if I'm mistakenly focusing on the premises and should be focusing on just the arguments instead. I know I should be looking to destroy the relationship between the premises and the arguments, but I'm finding it difficult.
Again, many thanks in advance for any tips/advice!
Comments
For weakening questions I found it easier to... when you're stuck... really write out what the conclusion is, what the support is, and then go through each answer choice. Ask yourself: "Does this answer make the conclusion less likely to be true?"
Heres an example, Preptest 64 Section 1 question 13:
[removed - please do not post sections from the LSAT on the forums!]
I answered B but D is correct. I guess I focused on the study too much? I though that because many were previously injured, they would have more difficulty to perform jogging and could somehow produce more injuries? I realize my reasoning is quite flawed but I still don't see why D is correct.
(D) gets at this contributing factor. Maybe it's the case that the experimental group that stretched are stretching because they have been injured in the past, and maybe it's the case that the people who are injured in the past or more likely to get injured again. In "lawgic speak," I would classify (D) as a case of reverse causation, which is one of the ways to weaken a causal argument (others include "same cause --> no effect // no cause --> same effect"). In this case, it's that the injuries causes stretching to not be as effective not that stretching causes the prevention of injuries.
I think (B) tries to do what (D) does, so I think you had the right instinct. However, it plays off an assumption -- that the group talked about in (B) is the same group talked about in the stimulus. We can't make this assumption, however, which would therefore make (B) irrelevant to the argument at hand. (D), however, applies to the group in the stimulus because we are talking about "habitual" stretchers.
That being said, I got this question wrong my first time through because I think the assumption is kind of a hard to see and the argument is easy to believe. However, we know there is an assumption being made so it's imperative we find it.
This makes sense because for these we're always looking to attack the support relationship to the conclusion. The difference between B and D in this case is that B doesn't look at the support just the conclusion. I find that most (if not always) the answer will specifically mention both the support and conclusion. Sorry if none of this makes sense.
Typically, the wrong answer choices will fall under these camps:
1) will be factually incorrect
2) will strengthen the argument rather than weaken
3) will introduce a subject shift always introducing the word "other" (x affects something "other" than y)
4) misses a crucial part of the argument that then makes the AC out of scope/ irrelevant (exactly what happened in B by not introducing the phrase "habitually stretch")