Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.1K All Categories
- 27.1K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 6 June 2024 LSAT
- 1 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 1 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 9 Forum Rules
- 574 Technical Problems
- 275 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Weakening questions on Newer LSATs
This might be common knowledge and I have certainly come across this in the core curriculum, but did not quite grasp what is meant. I am realizing that argument type is more important than the actual details when it comes to weakening questions. The best way to start is to know what kind of argument the author made (e.g., argument that appeals to an analogous case, argument that appeals to science, argument by equivocation, arguments that ignore multiple sufficient conditions, etc.). So take your time looking at the argument as a whole, and approach the questions with an idea of what kind of argument the author is making in mind. There are various ways to weaken an argument depending on the type of argument, and I've noticed a consistent pattern where the correct answer choice directly relates to the argument type and is less concerned with the literal context of the argument. For example, if the author makes an appeal to an analogous case, look for an answer that suggests these cases are not sufficiently analogous. If the argument is scientific in nature, look for answers that call the methodology into question or whether the study's results warrant the conclusion. If it is an argument by equivocation, look for an answer that explains why these two terms, principles, or settings are not actually equivalent. If an argument claims something is imperative (i.e., argument that ignores multiple sufficient conditions), look for answers that that express an alternate option. These are just some examples and feel free to add more types of arguments and systematic strategies used to attack an argument type.
Comments
This is really good stuff and I only thought about this earlier when I was looking at specific weaken questions that dealt with a survey. I found that the answer choice was something that said the survey wasn't reliable.
Could you further explain the last part about something being imperative (argument that ignores multiple sufficient conditions). I can't really pinpoint it. Do you mean like having alternative possibilities for an outcome?
Yeah exactly! So the author's argument centers around a proposal and insinuates that this must be the course of action taken. So when someone offers a proposal, a weakening response would be something like: we have other options, or just because we can doesn't necessary mean we must. > @"kolerv9923-1" said:
For strengthening, do you feel like the same applies? Or do you think strengthening questions use less formulaic stuff like that? And I can't tell if all weaken questions do what you've described, but I feel like you're right on with that. I feel like it's more alternate explanations and I think those tend to be harder. Because I can see analogies, studies, correlation/causation pretty easily.
How new are the PTs you’re noticing this on? I took PT 80, and I’m wondering if that’s partly why I missed a weaken question. I think I got too bogged down on the details. I’ll definitely be keeping this in mind, thank you!