a pattern that annoys me in WEAKEN questions Forum

[lawschoolplease1]

normally, when an argument says X is better than Y, and we want to weaken it... we look for something that says "Oh but Y has this negative thing that X doesn't have and you might want to consider that!"

or so was my understanding...
It's come clear to me that some answers just don't deal with the "that X doesn't have..." part.
it simply says, hey, but consider this thing that Y has!

case in point:

PT 32 LR 1
#2.
so the paradox is that although captivity turtles are exposed to diseases and wild ones aren't, they have the same live expectancy.
the answer choice i'm looking for tells me something bad about being in captivity OR something alright about being in the wild.

the answer choice tells me that most turtles that die in the wild are killed by predators.
i really hated this answer in the beginning because i thought, " yea well, so what?! maybe most turtles that die in captivity are killed by predators."
i looked through all the other answer choices, and realized, shit, no dice.
maybe it is C, which it was.

is this pattern that i've noticed bother anyone else besides me?! i can completely see LSAC turning this around and slapping me in the face with it. for example, they could say Fall is better than spring. everything weakens except: "spring has insertsomethingawesomehere." all simply because it doesn't specify if fall has that awesome something.

Am i making any sense to yall?

[Clyde Frog]

normally, when an argument says X is better than Y, and we want to weaken it... we look for something that says "Oh but Y has this negative thing that X doesn't have and you might want to consider that!"

or so was my understanding...
It's come clear to me that some answers just don't deal with the "that X doesn't have..." part.
it simply says, hey, but consider this thing that Y has!

case in point:

PT 32 LR 1
#2.
so the paradox is that although captivity turtles are exposed to diseases and wild ones aren't, they have the same live expectancy.
the answer choice i'm looking for tells me something bad about being in captivity OR something alright about being in the wild.

the answer choice tells me that most turtles that die in the wild are killed by predators.
i really hated this answer in the beginning because i thought, " yea well, so what?! maybe most turtles that die in captivity are killed by predators."
i looked through all the other answer choices, and realized, shit, no dice.
maybe it is C, which it was.

is this pattern that i've noticed bother anyone else besides me?! i can completely see LSAC turning this around and slapping me in the face with it. for example, they could say Fall is better than spring. everything weakens except: "spring has insertsomethingawesomehere." all simply because it doesn't specify if fall has that awesome something.

Am i making any sense to yall?

I really don't see the problem with this one. The questions stem states, "which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?" After you read the passage you should be prephrasing it. Maybe the reason that leatherbacks in captivity have the same life expectancy as the wild ones are that even after coming in contact with fatal diseases they are quickly treated for them, or maybe the leatherbacks in the wild are killed by other animals, thus shortening their lifespan.

(c) is without a doubt the answer.

[Clyde Frog]

By the way this isn't a weaken question. It's a resolve the paradox.

[lawschoolplease1]

I really don't see the problem with this one. The questions stem states, "which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?" After you read the passage you should be prephrasing it. Maybe the reason that leatherbacks in captivity have the same life expectancy as the wild ones are that even after coming in contact with fatal diseases they are quickly treated for them, or maybe the leatherbacks in the wild are killed by other animals, thus shortening their lifespan.

(c) is without a doubt the answer.

yea, i totally hear ya, but my point is that it's a weak point because we dont know anything about predators for the captivity sample.
maybe most that die in captivity are also bc of predators.

[Emma.]

maybe most that die in captivity are also bc of predators.

Not a lot of predators at your local aquarium.

[Clearly]

Weaken questions are annoying, case in point: a paradox question.. Lol you guys are great.

[lawschoolplease1]

maybe most that die in captivity are also bc of predators.

Not a lot of predators at your local aquarium.

totally hear you.
i'm making a bigger deal out of this because it's a basic pattern that could be more complicated.

[Emma.]

maybe most that die in captivity are also bc of predators.

Not a lot of predators at your local aquarium.

totally hear you.
i'm making a bigger deal out of this because it's a basic pattern that could be more complicated.

Maybe. But maybe you aren't thinking about these questions in the right way. In your OP, you say:

so the paradox is that although captivity turtles are exposed to diseases and wild ones aren't, they have the same live expectancy.
the answer choice i'm looking for tells me something bad about being in captivity OR something alright about being in the wild.

Since turtles in captivity are exposed to diseases and wild turtles aren't yet they have the same life expectancy, rather than looking for something bad about captivity or positive about being in the wild, you should be looking for a factor that equalizes the life expectancy. Since there's a factor that lowers the life expectancy of only turtles in captivity, a reasonable answer would be something that lowers the life expectancy of turtles only in the wild. Predation would do this, since captive turtles don't suffer death by predation, only wild turtles do.

Another potential way to resolve the paradox would be that captive turtles get some benefit that counterbalances the exposure to disease. But apparently that wasn't an answer choice here?

[Jeffort]

maybe most that die in captivity are also bc of predators.

Not a lot of predators at your local aquarium.

totally hear you.
i'm making a bigger deal out of this because it's a basic pattern that could be more complicated.

You mean like mistakenly treating 'most strongly supported' questions like they are strengthen questions? Doing that while also treating paradox questions like weaken questions would be more complicated and worth making a big deal about. It would totally screw up recognizing the patterns of which strategies to apply when and how to analyze different question types. That would be a nightmare.

[Clyde Frog]

maybe most that die in captivity are also bc of predators.

Not a lot of predators at your local aquarium.

totally hear you.
i'm making a bigger deal out of this because it's a basic pattern that could be more complicated.

You mean like mistakenly treating 'most strongly supported' questions like they are strengthen questions? Doing that while also treating paradox questions like weaken questions would be more complicated and worth making a big deal about. It would totally screw up recognizing the patterns of which strategies to apply when and how to analyze different question types. That would be a nightmare.

The Cleveland Cavaliers came back from 3-1 down against the Golden State Warriors.

[mvonh001]

Weaken questions are annoying, case in point: a paradox question.. Lol you guys are great.

This.

[bp shinners]

Doing that while also treating paradox questions like weaken questions would be more complicated and worth making a big deal about. It would totally screw up recognizing the patterns of which strategies to apply when and how to analyze different question types. That would be a nightmare.

This. The question you bring up is a Resolve question, which has a much different approach than a Weaken question.

In Weaken questions, you need the correct AC to be air-tight and require no additional assumptions in order to weaken it.

For Resolve questions, you can make a few small jumps in order to find something that resolves the discrepancy.

[rambleon65]

This is why I think there may be too much emphasis on Q type recognition. You can get caught up and then confuse yourself.

Resolve the paradox should approached exactly as it states: what would be the best way to account for this type of dissonance?

(C) is it.

[lawschoolplease1]

Doing that while also treating paradox questions like weaken questions would be more complicated and worth making a big deal about. It would totally screw up recognizing the patterns of which strategies to apply when and how to analyze different question types. That would be a nightmare.

This. The question you bring up is a Resolve question, which has a much different approach than a Weaken question.

In Weaken questions, you need the correct AC to be air-tight and require no additional assumptions in order to weaken it.

For Resolve questions, you can make a few small jumps in order to find something that resolves the discrepancy.

so if this were a weaken question... can we address one part of the two for a sufficient answer? from what I've noticed, we usually address both, right? unless the question is a "all weaken EXCEPT" type (in which case there's more room IMO)?

[bp shinners]

Doing that while also treating paradox questions like weaken questions would be more complicated and worth making a big deal about. It would totally screw up recognizing the patterns of which strategies to apply when and how to analyze different question types. That would be a nightmare.

This. The question you bring up is a Resolve question, which has a much different approach than a Weaken question.

In Weaken questions, you need the correct AC to be air-tight and require no additional assumptions in order to weaken it.

For Resolve questions, you can make a few small jumps in order to find something that resolves the discrepancy.

so if this were a weaken question... can we address one part of the two for a sufficient answer? from what I've noticed, we usually address both, right? unless the question is a "all weaken EXCEPT" type (in which case there's more room IMO)?

This couldn't be a Weaken question because it isn't an argument. There is no conclusion, just a weird situation. For a Weaken question to work, you'd need a conclusion to weaken. Another important difference between Resolve and Weaken questions.

[lawschoolplease1]

Doing that while also treating paradox questions like weaken questions would be more complicated and worth making a big deal about. It would totally screw up recognizing the patterns of which strategies to apply when and how to analyze different question types. That would be a nightmare.

This. The question you bring up is a Resolve question, which has a much different approach than a Weaken question.

In Weaken questions, you need the correct AC to be air-tight and require no additional assumptions in order to weaken it.

For Resolve questions, you can make a few small jumps in order to find something that resolves the discrepancy.

so if this were a weaken question... can we address one part of the two for a sufficient answer? from what I've noticed, we usually address both, right? unless the question is a "all weaken EXCEPT" type (in which case there's more room IMO)?

This couldn't be a Weaken question because it isn't an argument. There is no conclusion, just a weird situation. For a Weaken question to work, you'd need a conclusion to weaken. Another important difference between Resolve and Weaken questions.

i think i'm doing a poor job of communicating myself.
i used that example as really just an example that has a comparison factor. i totally get that it's not a weaken question.
another example would be..maybe...
company A is a better company than B.
Q: weaken this
if an answer choice read, "company A has really terrible benefits" would it be correct?
my question with this type of answer is that it doesn't tell me if company B has terrible benefits or not.

[magickware]

That's still a horrible example, and either you're grossly simplifying things to prove a point, or you don't quite get how the entire assumption family of the LSAT works.

Weakens only work within the context of the conclusion and the supporting premises they give.

You only wrote an argument, but no supporting information. It would be impossible to weaken it in that regard. Keep in mind that weaken questions are effectively weakening the assumption that connects the premise and the argument together. You are not trying to invalidate the argument, but rather the link that connects said argument with its support.

Given your OP, I think you didn't know this.