#22 - Weaken

[Nina]

I don't quite understand in what aspect does answer A weaken the author's position.

Thanks a lot!

[Steve Stein]

The author of that passage is clearly impressed with Noguchi, who is described as having intuitively asked and responded to deeply original questions. The main example that the author provides is Noguchi's exploration of positive light sculptures.

If, as answer choice A provides, Brancusi was making that very same inquiry for the two years that Noguchi was working for Brancusi, that would really weaken the point about deeply original questions.

I hope that's helpful! Let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[Nina]

oh...yeah, i ignored the name "Brancusi" (thought it was talking about Noguchi...). Thank you very much!

[15veries]

Hi

Why is B wrong?

I thought in 56, it says "Noguchi remained faithful to his inquisitive nature" so B would weaken because it says "...and in fact changed his style of sculptures repeatedly throughout his carrer."

Why is B not good?

[David Boyle]

Hi

Why is B wrong?

I thought in 56, it says "Noguchi remained faithful to his inquisitive nature" so B would weaken because it says "...and in fact changed his style of sculptures repeatedly throughout his carrer."

Why is B not good?

Hello 15veries,

"At the moment when his explorations had won critical recognition of the genius of his original and fundamental conception, Noguchi proceeded to the next phase of his evolution." So, the passage even says that Noguchi moved on to new things. Thus, answer B would not actually hurt the author's position. (It also doesn't hurt if he "produced only a few positive-light sculptures"; the fact that he produced any, shows that he pioneered the field.)

Hope this helps,
David

[blade21cn]

With this question, I'm a bit at a loss in dealing with Weaken questions in RC, as I felt the strategies in answering Weaken questions in LR cannot be transferred here. First of all, it's hard to pinpoint the exact argument and its relevant premise(s) and conclusion. It's not like each of the answer choices can be traced to an argument in the passage. Rather, some of the answer choices can be referenced to specific text in the passage, i.e., whether they were mentioned in the passage or not. So I would first screen to see whether an answer choice is supported by the passage.

(1) If so, it would be a strengthener, and thus incorrect. This'll be the case for (B) and (C), though in (B) the part "Noguchi produced only a few positive-light sculptures" is out of scope, as it was not mentioned in the passage.

(2) If it's something that's not mentioned, it would be out of scope. Thus, just like an irrelevant answer choice in Weaken questions in LR, such answer choices will be eliminated as well. This'll be the case for (D) and (E).

(3) If it's on point with some statement in the passage, but states something contradictory, then that'll be the correct answer. This'll be the case for (A), as the subject should be Noguchi, not Brancusi.

I'm not sure if my strategy formulated above is right, but it does sound like a strategy for Cannot Be True questions to me, as opposed to Weaken questions. I'd appreciate if any staff can provide any insights in how to answer Weaken questions in RC. Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

I think your approach is workable, blade, but it might be a bit time-consuming to go through every answer like that, looking to see if it is supported or out of scope. I think that the approach to a Weaken question in RC is EXACTLY like the approach in LR, and it starts with identifying the thing we are trying to weaken. In LR, that would be the argument overall, usually by focusing on the conclusion and looking for ways to raise doubts about the extent to which the premises support it. In RC, the question stem will guide to what we are supposed to weaken, and here it is "the author's position." So we have to ask ourselves, what IS the author's position?

Most of the passage was a recitation of facts, a partial history of Noguchi's career. None of that constitutes a "position." This is where our VIEWSTAMP approach really helps, because we should be looking for either the author's viewpoint, or else the author's argument presented in the passage (if there is one). When reading, I didn't take note of any particular argument, but the author's viewpoint is clearly expressed - she thinks Noguchi is pretty awesome! She thinks he was original and inquisitive. THAT is what we should be looking to weaken, then - we want evidence that Noguchi was NOT original and inquisitive! And with that, we head to the answer choices, not looking to eliminate losers that are not supported by the passage, but looking for some new information that raises doubts about Noguchi's originality or inquisitiveness, just like a weaken question in LR.

With that approach, starting with identifying the author's viewpoint - not just what they said, but what they think, or feel, or believe - should make answer A very obviously correct, because it indicates that Noguchi was not so original after all, but was instead following the course of another artist.

Short answer: identify what you are supposed to weaken, prephrase something that would weaken it, and then sort losers and contenders in the answers to find the one that best matches that prephrase. Whether in RC or LR, the process is the same!