Weaken common scenerios

[Kmikaeli]

I have noticed that the book talks about three most prevalent forms of weakening scenarios. These are incomplete information, improper comparison, and overly broad conclusion.

However, most of the lsat questions I've looked into revolve around taking the assumption and finding new/alternative possibilities which is known as incomplete information.

The other 2 scenarios were never seen by me. Secondly, how do you even approach improper comparison and overly broad conclusion from an assumption weakening point of view?

I know that incomplete information scenarios often either indirectly attack the argument by showing new information that weakens the current assumption, or less commonly attacks the conclusion directly by presenting information in the answer choice contrary to what the conclusion presents.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi,

Thanks for the question. Let me figure this one out:

Secondly, how do you even approach improper comparison and overly broad conclusion from an assumption weakening point of view?

When the conclusion is based on a false analogy, the author assumed that two things are comparable even though they are not. To weaken the argument, you need to show how they might be different. Let's say I told you that last night, I paired a tomato-based hallibut stew with a Valpolicella, a tanic red wine, even though the sommelier recommended a bright Chablis. I reason that tomorrow night I'll have the same wine with my dover sole, because, hey - hallibut and dover sole are both fish. I'm assuming, of course, that the two dishes are similar enough so that the type of wine appropriate for one would also be appropriate for the other. If, however, the dover sole tastes entirely different from the tomato-based hallibut stew (it does), then tonight's wine program would be entirely inappropriate for my menu.

You see what I just did? I introduced new information that, if true, would show that my conclusion is based on improper comparison.

The same paradigm can be applied to overly broad conclusions: let's use the same argument, but draw a different conclusion: since pairing Valpolicella with a hallibut stew was such a success, from now on I'll be drinking Valpolicella whenever I eat fish. How do you weaken this? By introducing new information - generally counterexamples - showing that my conclusion is overly broad.

Does this answer your question? Let me know.

Thanks!