I have a 100% failure rate on weakening and strenthening questions

7sage.getup560 · August 20

It seems like I am incapable at doing the strengthening and weakening questions. I read the answer choices and just think that none of them make sense. I could use some advice.

cdot9000 · August 21

weakening - introduce an alternative cause (which answer choice is most likely to break down the conclusion presented in the stimulus?)
strengthening - eliminate alternative causes

make sure you are properly identifying the conclusion for these as well! these question types are super annoying & meant to play mental games (I also still hate them) -- ALSOOOO do not overlook the word "except" in the question stem! I have found I get a lot wrong simply by missing that.

gabysmikhail · August 21

For strengthen and weaken questions the best advice I have is first think of them as a flaw question-what is the gap between the support and the conclusion? Why does the support not 100% prove the conclusion? Then use that flaw and either exploit it (weaken questions) or try to close the gap (strengthen questions). Once you start seeing that the answers have to relate to both the support and conclusion rather than just the conclusion it will be easier to eliminate those answers that look like they would strengthen but strengthen the conclusion rather than the REASONING that leads to the conclusion.

amulyachava-1 · August 24

If the answer choices are not making sense it may be because you are not spending enough time upfront with the stimulus. When you master the stimulus, the questions become easier. Both weaken and strengthen questions are part of the "assumption family", meaning that in drawing the conclusion from the premises the author leaves certain gaps that you either attack (weaken) or validate (strengthen). I would go about these questions in the following manner

1) Read thoroughly and carefully, it helps to pause periodically to think about what the author is trying to say after each sentence. As you read, you also want to be highly skeptical of any changes in language (for example say the author is talking about something that is illegal, and all of a sudden he/she starts treating it as immoral), changes in scope (for example talking about a subset of people and then drawing a conclusion about a larger population, or switching from some to all, sometimes to all the time, etc). It is imperative for you to actively engage in this manner with the stimulus as you read it. You never want to read passively.
2) At this point you should have boiled down the conclusion, and "why" aka the supporting premises. This is the part where you want to make the argument as simple as possible and boil it down to its essence. The test makers not only write in complicated language, but they also toss in a lot of distractor elements like background information, redundant premises, unnecessary descriptive information, etc. For example, consider the following argument: (Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising due to fossil fuel emissions. The rising CO2 levels contribute to global warming, which in turn leads to loss of biodiversity, harms wildlife, and may even cause sea levels to rise. Of course, fossil fuels have long been seen as essential for human survival. But the only way to stop global warming resulting from CO2 is to stop using fossil fuels. Therefore we need to replace the use of fossil fuels with hydroelectricity.) This argument has a lot of "fluff" that is not essential to the main argument core (the conclusion and supporting premises). All the detail about the negative consequences of global warming (loss of biodiversity, harm to wildlife, sea level rise) is fluff. The following sentence about fossil fuels being seen as essential for human survival is also fluff. You can boil down the main argument to "We need to use hydroelectricity instead of fossil fuels, because the only way we can curb dangerous global warming is by not using fossil fuels". You can even make it simpler than this if possible.
3) Now that you have the argument core down, you can evaluate the argument. A lot of times the gap is that the author has failed to take into account alternative possibilities or consider relevant information. For example in our argument, the author jumps from telling us about how bad fossil fuels are for the environment to concluding that we need to replace them with hydroelectricity. But why hydroelectricity? Why not solar energy? Or why not use biofuels? So our author, for some reason, thinks that hydroelectricity is the only other alternative to fossil fuels. That is the author's "unwarranted" assumption. It is unwarranted because the author does not justify it in the argument by eliminating the alternative possibilities, he/she just pretends like those alternatives don't exist.
4) Predict- if the question is asking me to strengthen the argument, I would validate the assumption that the author made: hydroelectricity is the only alternative to fossil fuels. If the question is asking me to weaken, I would attack the assumption by bringing up those alternative possibilities: fossil fuels can also be replaced with solar energy. As you can see, if you can get good at identifying the underlying assumptions of an argument, strengthen and weaken questions are just the opposite of each other.
5) answer choices- be flexible because your prediction may not match the right answer choice exactly. The right answer choice may address another alternative possibility/gap or rephrase your prediction. But that's ok because you've already engaged with the range of weaknesses in the stimulus; what's important is a general understanding of why the argument is not airtight. That will give you a strong hold over the stimulus so that you can more easily identify the right answer choice and/or eliminate the wrong ones. It is often easier to eliminate the wrong answer choices than to strain your brain on deciding why something is the right answer choice. To evaluate an answer choice, consider how it impacts the conclusion. Oftentimes wrong answer choices are "irrelevant". There are a few ways you can go about deciding whether an answer choice is irrelevant. 1) for weaken, I like to think about whether the author, given the answer choice, can just shrug it off and make the same exact argument. So for example say an answer choice said "many developing countries prefer to use fossil fuels". This would not weaken the author's argument, because the author can just go like "um ok fine, but I don't care about your preference. My argument is still the same, fossil fuels result in global warming so we need to start using hydroelectricity instead. An answer choice that says something like solar energy is a suitable alternative for fossil fuels, however, would force the author to explain himself. The author will have to respond and explain to us why he/she thinks we need to use hydroelectricity over solar energy. This answer choice would therefore be correct. 2) is the answer choice compatible with the argument? Going back to our hypothetical answer choice, developing countries' preference to use fossil fuels is still compatible with the author's argument, the author can just say yeah but combatting global warming is important so we need to stop using fossil fuels. If the answer choice is compatible, meaning it does not affect the author's ability to make his argument, it cannot be right. It is irrelevant. 3) This is more specific to the strengthen question type: is it redundant? Sometimes we may get an answer choice that tells us something we already know from the stimulus, so even though it seems to be strengthening the argument it's not really helping us. For example, an answer choice that says "global warming has negative consequences" would not be an ideal answer choice, because we already know that. Aside from irrelevant answer choices, strengthen and weaken questions frequently contain opposite answer choices where a strengthen question would have an answer choice that weakens the argument and vice versa. These can be very tempting, so you want to remind yourself of the task at hand before rushing to pick something like this and move on. In a nutshell, you want an answer choice that truly weakens/strengthens the conclusion. Note- for weaken, you don't need the answer choice to destroy the argument. It just needs to be something that forces the author to rethink things/explain himself, as we saw with the hypothetical correct answer choice " solar energy is a suitable alternative for fossil fuels".

It is also extremely helpful to be well aware of common methods of reasoning, especially causation. Causal conclusions in weaken and strengthen questions are extremely common. To weaken a causal conclusion, you want to present alternative causes/a common cause, present the possibility of a reversal, show issues with the data/studies used in the stimulus, show a situation where the cause does not result in the effect or where even without the cause the effect occurs. To strengthen a causal conclusion, you would eliminate alternative causes, eliminate the possibility of a reversal, strengthen the validity of the data/studies used, show cause effect or no cause no effect. In addition to causal reasoning, you want to be able to recognize conditional reasoning, the use of analogies, the use of surveys/studies, etc. You want to know all the common types of flaws.

The only way to internalize the ability to identify assumptions/ common flaws, common methods of reasoning and get good at eliminating incorrect answer choices is to practice in depth. You need to break down each question and analyze why it sucks. You want to truly understand why the right answer choice is right and the wrong answer choice is wrong. Compare your understanding/explanations to explanations on 7sage or online. The more you practice the faster you will get because your brain will learn to detect patterns. Maybe avoid timed practice until you feel confident with these questions untimed

pw62787 · September 10

Thank you so much for the help.

kgarciarojas · September 11

Brother, you need to make sure you understand the arguments you read. You will not be able take any effective action on the argument if you do not know what the argument is. This may sound overly simplified, but without this first step you have no chance at weakening and strengthening because you have no basis for decision making or evaluating the answer choices.

If these question types are tough first work on main conclusion and most strongly supported questions, those build your recognition skills for arguments in general. It will help you break down an argument structure which can contain context, premises, and conclusions.

Once you do that you need to review and understand that premises are there to support a conclusion, it’s like a foundation to a house. The core curriculum has good lessons on this.

Then you will go into the typical ways arguments are weak, and learn how to expose them and by the same logic strengthen them. This is also in the CC.

DO NOT keep doing weakening and strengthening questions if you read the stimulus and are clueless after. There is a difference between reading a difficult stimulus and not having knowing what you should be looking for while reading. This gets built up through the CC and then through drilling and good review of questions after you get them wrong. Again make sure you have your concepts down first, because you do not want to just use up your practice material and get no real benefit from it.

Lastly, it’s normal to feel like you did at the time of making this post, many times we just do not read text the same way a logic nerd does. It takes time and adaptation, but that will happen for you. Trust the process!

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

I have a 100% failure rate on weakening and strenthening questions

Comments