Weaken Type Question

[Kmikaeli]

This is another question that connects with assumptions so please bare with me. I understand that within weaken type questions we do not directly attack the conclusion but rather we show how the conclusion does not logically follow from a set of premises. The most prevalent way this is often done within weaken type questions is by analyzing the assumption and picking an answer choice that undermines it. The answer choice tends to be "new"/alternative information that undermines the assumption and thus the argument as a whole.

The other types of assumptions that take place are causal and conditional statement related. When the causal statement is in the conclusion, the author has assumed that the cause stated is the only cause to allow the event/effect to take place. Our purpose is to reveal this flawed assumption by bringing in 1 of 5 other assumption possibilities such as reversal of stated relationship in order to weaken the existing assumption.

Conditional statements within the conclusion revolve around an assumption as well since the author assumes that the necessary condition must take place if the sufficient occurs. To weaken such an assumption, we must provide an alternative interpretation to the assumption where the necessary condition is not required, which as a result will weaken the preexisting assumption and thus the argument.


HOWEVER, the Flaw in the Reasoning chapter lists many different types of flaws that weaken the argument, which some tend to not be based around the unstated premise, but instead text formation, structure, and many other elements. So, can a weaken question involve these flaws as well? If not, is this the reason as to why weaken questions are separated from flaw questions? Also, if weaken questions do involve all flaws from the flaw in the reasoning chapter, are they often rare?

[Nicholas Bruno]

Hi Kmikaeli,

I am going to answer each of your questions separately. I think the main thing to remember (rather than trying to split hairs on how to categorize a question theoretically) is to keep the big picture in mind. On a weaken question, you are trying to weaken the argument in a stimulus. On a flaw question, you are trying to identify the problem with the argument. While many times there will be similarities between these two types of problems, just keep in mind the big picture of what you are trying to do . While you raise some interesting theoretical questions, I am a little concerned you are trying to get into the theory of the test here instead of just buckling down on how to approach a question. While there is nothing wrong with that per se, it is a lot just to master the approach to the question and I would focus my efforts on that

To your specific questions:

Can a weaken question involve these flaws as well?

Possibly. I mean it is certainly possible that a stimulus has one of the flaws that is discussed in the material and that identifying the flaw could lead you to choose the right answer. Again, though, the focus on a weaken question needs to be how do you *weaken* the argument not on identifying a flaw (which may not be there at all).

If not, is this the reason as to why weaken questions are separated from flaw questions?

Not really. The distinction is what you are *doing* to answer the question. Just keep your focus there

Also, if weaken questions do involve all flaws from the flaw in the reasoning chapter, are they often rare?

I am not sure the breakdown here of how many times a weaken question has a flaw from the flaw chapter. Just from my knowledge of the test, I do not remember these coming up often.

I hope that helps!

[Kmikaeli]

I get it, but two more things I would like to address. The way I see conditional conclusions and causal conclusions as an assumption is correct right? Within my first post I separate the ideas to know how to tackle them more accurately.

Secondly, how do I tackle improper comparison and overly broad conclusion in terms of weakening them, instead of spotting the flaw?

[Nicholas Bruno]

I get it, but two more things I would like to address. The way I see conditional conclusions and causal conclusions as an assumption is correct right? Within my first post I separate the ideas to know how to tackle them more accurately.

Secondly, how do I tackle improper comparison and overly broad conclusion in terms of weakening them, instead of spotting the flaw?

Yes! Both the conditional and the causal conclusions part of your post seem correct!

Its hard to talk about tackling improper comparison/overly broad conclusion without a specific example so let me know if this does not make sense. The reason being is that there are MANY ways you could weaken that...it just depends on the choices given to you in the answer choices. I am not able to think of any such weaken questions off hand.

On improper comparison, I would imagine, you would look for an answer choice that highlights the difference. For example, if the stimulus (improperly) compared humans and monkeys, a correct answer choice MAY be that humans and monkeys are different in some way.

Same thing on overly broad conclusions. For example, if the stimulus supports the conclusion that some cars are orange but the stated conclusion is that ALL cars are orange. Again, you would have to look at the answer choices given you: I would think an answer choice that someone observed cars that are not orange would probably work in this context.

Again, it is hard to discuss theoretically without a question that you might have in mind. If a certain question/questions are prompting your questions, please feel free to ask about those as well! But i do hope that this helps

[Kmikaeli]

I see, while Flaw in the Reasoning questions would just point out the flaw in the argument, a weaken question will see the flaw and choose an answer choice that would exploit such a flaw which tends to be based around an assumption.