Flaw v. Weaken Question Stems

[ehilliard]

Hello,

I am struggling a little bit with how to approach weaken and flaw question stems. Some of the question stems seem like they could go either way e.g.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that...

I tend to use a little different approach with weaken questions then with flaw questions. When I identify a questions as a flaw question I am more on the lookout for specific flaws whereas with weaken I think more broadly about argument holes.

I know the two type are closely related because a flaw by definition "weakens" an argument but do you have any suggestions for how to distinguish and approach these two types? How should the prephrasing process differ?

Appreciate any thoughts!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Thanks for the question!

Generally, flaw in the reasoning questions are going to specifically mention the REASONING of the argument, as in the example you gave, and are asking you to identify a shortcoming of that reasoning. Weaken questions can also use the word reasoning, but they're asking you to choose the answer that would itself damage the argument, if that answer choice were true.

For weaken questions, it is helpful to personalize the argument - how would you react if you were arguing with the author of the stimulus? What would you say in rebuttal? And what would the author's response be to each answer choice?

For flaw questions, you want to try to spot the specific flaw, just as you said you're doing: that flaw will be your prephrase.

Let me know if that helps or if you have additional questions!

[ehilliard]

Ah, that makes sense. Looking for the reference to reasoning clarifies things a lot! Thanks!