Weaken Argument Queries

[Trice]

Please provide a detailed exegetical on the best way to approach, and attack weaken questions, including weakening conditional reasoning. Thanks.

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Trice,

Thanks for the question! So I can target my answer to your experience, can you tell my anything about what kind of trouble you're having with Weaken questions?

[Trice]

Good Evening:

Thanks for your reply.

I am cognizant to the that fact that the key to weakening an argument is to attack the conclusion. However, upon approaching the answers, I'm lost. As I have trouble confidently selecting the correct one to achieve the purpose of hurting the argument, as well as identifying why an answer choice is wrong, hence my initial query. I figured that an additional explanation of the concept could be helpful. Additionally, my trouble spot is pre-phrasing these types of questions.

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Start with the premise that any LSAT question that asks you to weaken the argument presumes that the argument can, in fact, be weakened - it must have some flaw (as most LSAT LR arguments do). One approach to a weaken question is to identify the argument's flaw - what did the author do wrong? Did they make an unsupported assumption? This may show up in the form of new information appearing in the conclusion - a supporter assumption. If so, what was it? To weaken the argument, show that the underlying assumption may have been incorrect - remove that support.

Did the author look at evidence of a correlation and then presume that one of the correlated things caused the other? Weaken that by suggesting that the two may not have a causal relationship, or that the author may have gotten the causal relationship backwards, or that he relied on bad data.

As you can see, Weaken questions are, in a sense, Flaw questions and also Assumption questions, so use the skills and knowledge you have of those question types and apply them here.

Another approach is almost purely psychological - "attack the stimulus", as we say in the course materials, by taking a personal interest in the argument. Imagine you are preparing for a debate with the author - what would you say in response to his claims in order to win the debate? If you put yourself into that mental state - argumentative, ready for a fight - you should have an easier time prephrasing your answers.

Finally, ask yourself this question about any answer choices that you consider to be contenders - do they make the conclusion less likely? They don't have to destroy it, just sowing a seed of doubt may be enough. The answer that does the best job of casting doubt on the conclusion is your winner.

I hope that helps! Not sure it qualifies as exegesis, but let's see if it does the job.

[Trice]

It certainly does qualify. Much appreciation, Mr. Tyson.