PT78.S3.Q26 - although the production costs

Comments

• Cant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 🍌 7Sage Tutor

  September 2016 27900 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.
• stcaitmokyu Free Trial Member

  September 2016 68 karma

  Okay...it'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?
• CalPoliSci Member

  September 2016 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.
• stcaitmokyu Free Trial Member

  September 2016 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?