Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 29 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Help with Weakening Questions!
1LBound
Alum Member
I'm in the middle of going through the CC and I'm on weakening questions at this point. I'm working on my problem sets, but the last five sets I've done, I've been getting three or more of the questions wrong- the last two I just did, I got all the questions wrong. I understand for weakening questions, I'm looking for AC that reduces the support between the premise and conclusion, and I'm able to identify the premise, conclusion, referential phases, etc. in each argument. But when it comes down to select my AC, this is where I trip up. I'm going through JY's explanations for each question, and I see where his argument came from in selecting the AC, but the next set I do, I miss the point again and get too many questions wrong. Help! Any tips of how to conquer the tough weakening questions? Should I review the whole lesson plan again? Should I look at another way of attacking these questions via other study guides? I'm getting frustrated and discouraged because I've been handling all other topics fine, but I'm at a road block with these questions. Thanks in advance!
Comments
Eliminate answer choices, and when you get down to two appealing ones, look at each of them. Pay attention to the small words like some or all or none or w/e it may be. Then imagine yourself saying it to the person making the argument. Could they go around it and say "yeah, but"? Weaken answers must weaken the argument with no exception. If someone says "A usually leads to B", you cant counter him with "sometimes road A doesnt lead to B" because he can easily say "okay, sometimes it doesnt but usually it does"...etc etc. You have to make sure he/she has no out (in most cases). In other cases you're just attacking a premise and making it weaker so that the conclusion cant be properly drawn from the given premises.
The way I improved on this section is by really paying attention to the wording, and the potential "outs" an answer choice leaves for the person making the argument.
Do a BR for each problem set. For each question type out why each answer is correct and why each answer is wrong. Do this before marking it. Don't just say this is wrong because it is irrelevant, say something more to it. Try to find proof of it from the passage, use the theory you learned from causation, or from what you already learned by watching J.Y.s lessons, etc. Do the best you can in explaining them. Then, I would go over J.Y.'s analysis and type that out as well for each A/C. Do this for every question, regardless if you got it right or wrong. Take a look at the reasoning of yours and of J.Y.'s. The more you analyse these differences the stronger you will become. It takes a lot of discipline and time. Also, don't be down about it either. The higher numbered problem sets consist of all difficult questions. It feels like a defeat, but it is not. You are bound to get a few difficult questions wrong if they are all difficult, especially since you are starting out.
With that being said, I suggest you do another two problem sets with the BR method I mentioned and stop doing weakening for today. Start on the next lesson if there is time, and resume weakening lesson tomorrow.
Good luck!
Follow the advice above but maybe you could pretend that the argument is your own...if you do that...read the answer choices and whichever one makes me second guess what you've said, there's your answer. Seems like a weird strategy but sometimes we have to think outside the box.
How are you with conditionality and causality? Are you actively reading and thinking of the consequences of each premise and conclusion?
The tougher weaken questions are the hardest questions on the test, so don't feel too bad. I frequently have to skip these. When I return to them, my process is to first make sure I really have a deep understanding of the stimulus, and then to go into the answer choices with an open mind and give each one a chance. If you're pre-phrasing, cut that out immediately. You can't pre-phrase on weaken questions because there are just too many ways to affect the argument structure. Pre-phrasing closes our minds to possibilities when we really need to be creative in our application of each AC to the argument. I really advocate for each AC and try to make it work. I do this with skepticism, but I really try to make each one work.
Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I used the BR method mentioned above when doing strengthening questions and it definitely helped, which made me hopefully I can complete my weakening question sets correctly, but that wasn't the case. I did great on one set, and the next two just wrecked me. I have noticed while going through JY's explanations, I'm having difficulty imaging the alternative explanations and denying the assumption. Now that I've pinpointed my problem with this question type, should I write out JY's explanations like mnr suggested and review them over and over again to strengthen my ability to see the alternative explanation? It seems my ability to be skeptical when doing these questions doesn't exist.