Weakening questions

Comments

• 2 Likes

  Heart Shaped Box Alum Member ⭐

  July 2017 edited July 2017 2426 karma

  Let's say a simple argument structure goes like: bc of X, therefore Y. To make the premise less relevant to the conclusion would be saying things like: just bc X, not necessarily Y. Or even if X is true, the conclusion of Y could still be wrong.

  Attacking the premise would be saying: not X.

  So there is the difference.

  To put it into perspective with a made up example:

  Because I train hard for running everyday now, therefore I will become a 2020 Olympic champion.

  There are many ways to weaken this argument, we'll just pick a simple exaggerated one for the sake of the illustration

  "The statistics shows the average professional athlete's injury rate to be around 70%."

  Bad example, I know. Please bear with me.

  True, I may/could still be a champion of 2020 Olympic, but the premise of "training hard" has become relatively less relevant regardless of it being true, thus inherently weakened the argument, even though maybe just a tiny bit.

  To attack the premise would be saying: no, you don't train hard for running. Which for sure "weakens" the argument bc the premise is no longer true, but that's not how the Lsac decides to test us. On the Lsat, we take the premise to be true and say: even if we hold the premise true, the conclusion "could" still be wrong.