So this particular question has about 8 years worth of comments and about as much time's worth of confusion regarding why D weakens the argument because it seems to be attacking a premise, namely the one stating that these painters have to eat sea animals ...
**This seems to be a recurring theme in several LR questions, so perhaps worth considering.** When attacking a support (premise to conclusion) in an argument, isn't the use of "*some*" i.e. other cases or situations, irrelevant ...
I seem to be confused on which questions types to expect Alternative-Reversal-Coincidence answer choices when dealing with a causal argument. Is this exclusive to Strengthen-Weaken questions? Thanks in advance for any help on this.
... would for a flaw/strengthen/weaken/necessary or sufficient assumption ... scenario 1) would strengthen the argument considerably. The ... shades scenario) would weaken the argument considerably. Always ... the opposites would strengthen and weaken in this 'opposite ...
... to see the flaw to strengthen or weaken. Whether you do it ... going with abstract theory first. Strengthen/weaken is often easier for students ...
... , BP groups Flaw separately from Strengthen/Weaken whereas Manhattan LR has them ... wrong with the stimulus and strengthen/weaken, you identify the support from ...
... it a causality flaw? A weaken causality question? Does it deal ... that most question types, especially Strengthen, Weaken, Flaws, and Necessary Assumptions, reuse ...
... still working through Manhattan LR: Strengthen/Weaken and Conditional Logic. I plan ... time for most NA, strengthen and weaken questions is around 2:00 ...