What happened in the past...can be useful or not?

[mokkyukkyu]

Hi,

So I cannot provide specific example from real PTs, but
I think there are many times the test deal with time-shift...
In flaw question, the idea is flaw because something happened in the past may not happen again in future,
but in strengthen or weaken question, the idea can be useful to support/weaken the argument in the stimulus right?

So does it mean flaw argument can be useful in support/weaken something?

[Adam Tyson]

Yes indeed! It may seem counter-intuitive, but while information about the past may not PROVE that something will happen in the future, it could still STRENGTHEN the idea that it may or will happen (because at least we know it is possible).

The Carolina Panthers have played in two Super Bowl games and lost both of them. Does that prove that they will lose the next time they get to the big game? Of course not (I hope not!). Does it strengthen the claim that, if they play in the Super Bowl again next year, they will likely lose? Not much, but some, because we know that it is at least possible (and, to some extent, there is a pattern there that may continue).

The same thing happens in other contexts. For example, consider a causal argument based on a correlation - say, every time Cam Newton gets a touchdown, he gives the ball to a kid in the stands, therefore getting a touchdown causes him to give the ball to a kid in the stands. Does the correlation here prove causation? Of course not! But, if tomorrow Cam Newton gets a touchdown and then gives the ball to a kid in the stands, does it strengthen the causal claim? Sure, a little, by showing that when the purported cause happened, the effect also happened. Not proof, but help.

You'll probably find that pattern again and again on the LSAT - an answer that indicates a flaw in the reasoning could still be used to strengthen an argument, depending on how it is presented and used.