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.
I believe this should be a weaken question not flaw. Manhattan says its weaken too. Besides, the right answer choice E is giving a new cause- that of not being extroverted as a person OVER astrology affecting them.
... causation from correlation, can you strengthen the argument through an answer ... , would that strengthen the argument? Conversely, could I weaken the argument by ...
(a) finding ... time oceans... This seems to strengthen, because our conclusion is trying ... t see how this would strengthen the premise which states, ... not living)... wouldn't it weaken my argument? Because this ...
What are the three ways to weaken an argument again? I only remember alternative hypothesis. I swear there was a lesson that taught this but I don't remember which one.