Point at Issue: Strengthen & Weaken Questions

[Gracejk]

Hi Team!

I'm currently trying to understand how to address weaken or strengthen questions, within a point at issue stimulus. For instance, in PT103, S1, Q26 (old version is PT19), the q-stem states:

"Which of the following, if true, would provide Sasha with the strongest counter to Gregory's response?"

At this point, am I trying to strengthen Sasha's argument, by way of weakening Gregory's? Or, am I directly seeing Gregory's argument as its own (i.e. As though it were not within a dialogue form), and trying to weaken it independently?

There's also another instance, where the q-stem, seemed similar, but I struggled to understand what I'm being asked to do, in the same PT, but in S3, Q6 (old version is PT 26 for this Q), in which the q-stem states:

"Which of the following rejoinders, if true, most directly counters the second legislator's objection?"

Once again, I wasn't sure if I'm being asked to weaken the second legislator's argument independent of the dialogue involved, or by way of strengthening the first legislator's argument, which would thus weaken the second legislator's argument.

Additionally, is there a possibility that in such questions, one could have an answer that could be in either form?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. And by the way, my utmost thanks on the podcast on Principle questions. I REALLY appreciated that. If it's not too much to ask, could you also speak on Role questions, and how one can practice pre-phrasing what's taking place, before going to the answers?

Many Thanks,
Grace

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Grace,

The short answer is that, in both cases, you are being asked to Weaken the argument mentioned last in the question (i.e. Gregory's argument in the first example and the second legislator's argument in the second example).

The word "counter" in these questions basically just means weaken.

Of course, since the stimulus for these questions often involves two people who are arguing with each other, it is certainly possible that by weakening one person's argument, the other person may also be indirectly strengthening their own argument.

However, to keep things simple, just focus on weakening the argument that the question asks you to counter.

They certainly could ask you to strengthen one of the arguments rather than weaken one of the arguments, but the question would be worded differently.

One final point, neither of these questions are Point at Issue questions. While Point at Issue questions also involve stimuli that have two people arguing, Point at Issue questions are asking about the point of disagreement itself rather than asking you to strengthen or weaken one of the arguments. In other words, not every stimulus that involves two people arguing will ask a Point at Issue question.

Here are the links to the forum posts for those two questions, in case you're interested.

viewtopic.php?f=651&t=6296

viewtopic.php?f=627&t=34371

I will pass on your request for a discussion of Method-AP (Argument Part, aka Role) questions on the podcast.

In the meantime, here is a blog post on that topic that you may find helpful.

https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/argume ... questions/

[Gracejk]

Hi Grace,

The short answer is that, in both cases, you are being asked to Weaken the argument mentioned last in the question (i.e. Gregory's argument in the first example and the second legislator's argument in the second example).

The word "counter" in these questions basically just means weaken.

Of course, since the stimulus for these questions often involves two people who are arguing with each other, it is certainly possible that by weakening one person's argument, the other person may also be indirectly strengthening their own argument.

However, to keep things simple, just focus on weakening the argument that the question asks you to counter.

They certainly could ask you to strengthen one of the arguments rather than weaken one of the arguments, but the question would be worded differently.

One final point, neither of these questions are Point at Issue questions. While Point at Issue questions also involve stimuli that have two people arguing, Point at Issue questions are asking about the point of disagreement itself rather than asking you to strengthen or weaken one of the arguments. In other words, not every stimulus that involves two people arguing will ask a Point at Issue question.

Here are the links to the forum posts for those two questions, in case you're interested.

viewtopic.php?f=651&t=6296

viewtopic.php?f=627&t=34371

I will pass on your request for a discussion of Method-AP (Argument Part, aka Role) questions on the podcast.

In the meantime, here is a blog post on that topic that you may find helpful.

https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/argume ... questions/

Hi Jeff!

Many thanks on the explanation on such questions, and the clarity on how a dialogue argument can be presented on the LSAT (i.e. it can be more than just Point at Issue Q's). As well, the break down on the questions to which the Q-stems are derived from were very helpful.

I appreciate you for passing that message along!

And again, thanks for the resources provided on Role Questions.

Regards,
Grace

[RonnyMuller]

Yes, in some cases, the correct answer can take one of two forms:

• Directly undermining the counterargument – ​​that is, attacking the counterargument by pointing out flaws logical, lacking evidence or providing counter-argument.

• Reinforcing the original argument – ​​that is, providing stronger evidence or reasons to support the first argument, thereby indirectly weakening the counter-argument.

However, most of these questions will have a better option, that is, a direct rebuttal of the opponent’s argument will usually be the correct answer rather than simply reinforcing the original argument.

[Gracejk]

Yes, in some cases, the correct answer can take one of two forms:

• Directly undermining the counterargument – ​​that is, attacking the counterargument by pointing out flaws logical, lacking evidence or providing counter-argument.

• Reinforcing the original argument – ​​that is, providing stronger evidence or reasons to support the first argument, thereby indirectly weakening the counter-argument.

However, most of these questions will have a better option, that is, a direct rebuttal of the opponent’s argument will usually be the correct answer rather than simply reinforcing the original argument.

Hi Ronny!

Thanks for pointing that out as well; I've been seeing that final observation as a common theme within my drills sets.

Much appreciated,
Grace