Strengthen and Weaken questions

[eober]

Hi,

So I was going over the questions I got wrong and I realized a pattern. Before making a generalization I wanted to ask about it.

Is saying "it happened in the past several times" a good way to strengthen an argument?

Also, is "source of an event does not exist so the finding cannot be supported" a good way to weaken an argument. (example, december 2008 PT, section 2, question 8)

These are not causal questions but the 5 ways to weaken/strengthen a causal relationship seems to work in other strengthen/weaken questions. I am just trying to better prephrase because I seem to get carried away with the other answer choices that are wrong.

Thank you!

[BethRibet]

Hi eober,

Thanks for the questions.

There's more to the example you cite from 12/08 that bears on the context of the stimulus and answer, so I wouldn't generalize from that to whether this is generally a good way to weaken. It depends on the problem.

Something happening in past may strengthen an argument about the present a little, but is not a very reliable way to strengthen an argument, because the LSAT presumes that past, present and future can not be reliably equated or conflated. However, again, it will depend on the context of the specific question, so I would certainly not say it could never work.

I don't disagree that the relationship between premises and conclusions are something like (though not precisely like) the relationship between effect and cause, so it's not surprising that you would feel that the techniques would translate. What I would say is that the more you're clear on the flaw or weakness in the stimulus, the easier it is to assess whether the answer choice will exploit that flaw (i.e. weaken the argument) or minimize or eliminate that flaw (i.e. strengthen the argument). So as much as you can, focus on understanding -- much like a lawyer does in practice -- how a given argument or position can be most reasonably and credibly attacked, and then work from there.

Hope this helps!
Beth

[eober]

Hi Beth,

So when my prephrase cannot be more definite than "the answer choice is going to attack the weakness" or "the answer choice should eliminate the weakness/flaw"?

Thanks for your help!