Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

Why are weakening questions so hard?

axbSunDevaxbSunDev Member
in Logical Reasoning 256 karma

After 2 years of studying for this crazy exam, I have always been so bad at weakening questions. Sometimes doing problem sets untimed and still getting weakening questions incorrect and continuously falling for the trap answers. I feel like weakening ACs are so subjective and ambiguous. Even when I dissect the stimulus and separate the premises, find the assumptions that connect the premises and conclusion, I still get it wrong because I feel like there is SO much reasoning involved in weakening questions that it is nearly impossible to do under timed conditions. Surprisingly I am pretty good at strengthening questions. So I'm in a bit of a paradox lol

Powerscore says to focus on the conclusion, 7sage says focus on the assumption. Both forms of advice have not really helped me thus far.

Any advice? This exam is so frustrating lol

Thanks Y'all !

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • AAR 1292AAR 1292 Member
    47 karma

    These have tended to be a stronger question type for me; and I tend to do better on them than on strengthening, even though the two are obviously related. Identifying the assumption supporting the conclusion has been what's worked best for me. If the question is simple enough and I correctly identify the assumption, generally one of the ACs clearly attacks it, and the process is pretty straightforward. On the more difficult questions when I can't readily identify the assumption being made, I generally look at how each AC affects the argument and its conclusion, and can eliminate 4 or just find the correct one that way. I think with regards as to which method to use (7sage vs Powerscore), focusing on the assumption (provided you can identify it correctly) is the more effective method, as that is what you need to attack in order to weaken the conclusion in the first place. Obviously don't ignore the conclusion of the argument though, or you'll have nothing to weaken lol. Not sure if this helps at all, but that's how I've gone about doing weakening questions so far. Good Luck!

  • barista17barista17 Member
    112 karma

    Focus on understanding the stimulus. If you truly understand the stimulus, then you are much more likely to understand the assumption and the conclusion and all that jazz. You don't understand the stimulus.

  • Prof. KingsfieldProf. Kingsfield Member
    18 karma

    Could it help you to first identify the type of argument the stimulus is making before trying to weaken/strengthen?

    The way I learned it is to categorize arguments as causal arguments vs everything else.

    For causal arguments, which are v common, the approach to weakening is formulaic and in my experience almost always helps get to the right answer. You look for an answer choice that shows:
    1) cause without effect;
    2) effect without cause;
    3) an alternate cause;
    4) reversal of the cause and effect (less common).

    When the argument is not causal, then you look for problems w the link between the premises and the conclusion. There will invariably be a gap (or an assumption) that was made and isn't fully bridged by the argument. So whatever the premises are don't justify the conclusion. Your job is to exploit that gap and pick an answer choice that either makes it bigger or shows why it's a problem.

  • canihazJDcanihazJD Alum Member Sage ⭐
    edited March 2021 8491 karma

    @"Prof. Kingsfield" said:

    Good stuff. To add:

    • A 5th way to weaken a causal argument is to show that there is a problem with the data. This occurs frequently on the LSAT.

    • In addition to premise/conclusion (attack assumptions and flaws) and cause/effect (attack via 5 methods), another useful framework to look for is phenomenon/hypothesis or scientific method. Check for uncontrolled variables, sample issues, etc.

Sign In or Register to comment.