General consensus on Strengthen/Weaken over time Forum

[0913djp]

Question:

Are the earlier prompts from PTs 1-40 more difficult than 40-69?

I have done about 100 Weaken questions, mainly from 1-40 and there are some that make no sense at all. I'd say about 10-15% of the questions have answers that do not seem to "weaken" more than others.

I can post examples, but I was wondering if anyone has had the same feelings.

[Clearly]

Question:

Are the earlier prompts from PTs 1-40 more difficult than 40-69?

I have done about 100 Weaken questions, mainly from 1-40 and there are some that make no sense at all. I'd say about 10-15% of the questions have answers that do not seem to "weaken" more than others.

I can post examples, but I was wondering if anyone has had the same feelings.

You just need to keep practicing. There are never two answer choices that weaken.

[magickware]

Post examples.

[0913djp]

Example:

PT 16, Section 2, #16

Why is the answer (E)? Answer choice (D) appears to weaken the argument significantly whereas (E) just shows that accuracy can be attained, that does not mean that the species in the water does not differ. Does it weaken only because of increased accuracy over approximation (given in the stimulus)?

I hate this stuff.

[magickware]

It appears that you don't fully understand what weaken questions are meant to do, or you just completely misread answer choice E and/or misunderstood D.

P-Researchers in S.A. estimate changes in shark population by monitoring CPUE, which is the number of sharks that commercial fishers catch per hour for each kilo of gill net.
P-Since 1973 CPUE for a certain shark species remained constant.
Conclusion-Therefore, the population of that particular shark remained stable the entire time.

Now, what's going on here? The stimulus is saying that since the CPUE has remained constant since 1973, the population must have been constant. But what about technological advancements? Or anything else that may have influenced efficiency of catching sharks? In other words, the stimulus assumptions that EVERYTHING remained equal. Any answer choice that shows that EVERYTHING did not remain equal will weaken this.

A-Irrelevant. Always keep in mind that, for assumption family questions (MSLAT term), you're looking for the connection between the conclusion and the premises. What MSLAT calls the argument core. This answer has absolutely no bearing on this.
B-Irrelevant.
C-Irrelevant.
D-Irrelevant. Why? First, quota is never mentioned in the stimulus. Second, even if there was a quota, then obviously the researchers will just calculate to work around it. This piece of information doesn't do anything to weaken the connection between the conclusion and the premises.
E-If one can find sharks with greater accuracy, then one can only imagine that catching them will be easier as well, no? Keep in mind what weaken questions ask you to do "Which one of the following, if true, MOST SERIOUSLY weakens the argument?


This means that you're not looking for the weaken answer choice that is actually ironclad, you need to make the assumption that finding shark with greater accuracy=catching more for E to make any sense, but rather the answer choice that just fits the best.

You never mentioned why you thought D weakens the answer choice. Mind explaining? Could tell us about your thought process.

[0913djp]

@Magickware

Thanks for responding. I don't see A-C as being relevant. So we're on that point. I guess D is irrelevant now that you put it in laymen's terms. I think the tonnage seems irrelevant to the argument.

I'll keep practicing.

[magickware]

Well, no, it's not merely a matter of just practicing. That's the trap I fell into for my first take, and it bit me in the end.

You need to struggle with a question until you actually get it.

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

Well, no, it's not merely a matter of just practicing. That's the trap I fell into for my first take, and it bit me in the end.

You need to struggle with a question until you actually get it.

Any tips for how you struggled? I think this is the most important part, but it's a very internal process and I find it hard to describe.

[magickware]

Hm.

At the beginning, I just wouldn't see why a question works that way, so I literally just sat there with the question in front of me, willing myself to look at it the way the tutors at MSLAT does. Didn't help all that much.

But then one day I got assistance from Matt Sherman over at MSLAT (I took their online course) on a particular LR question that I didn't really get even when I saw the explanation, and what he said more or less clicked. He basically said that every word is important.

I suppose it was a change in how I thought about LR? Anyways, with that in mind and a lot of time spend looking at every word, I eventually came to catch on term shifts and common ways in how LSAC messes with wording. That led to me understanding other things, and so on.

Doesn't guarantee a -0 on LR sections, but at least I went from an average of -7 to -8 combined to an average now of -1 to -5. Concentration issue on the second LR section is biting my ass right now =(

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

That's a good way of putting it. I get a lot of conversations that go like this:

me: Now what does the question say
student: *Inaccurate paraphrase*
me: That's not what it says.
student: *repeats inaccurate paraphrase*
me: look at the words. All of them.
student: Oh, it says something completely different

I'll use that from now on. "Every word is important". Because they are.

[Otunga]

Hm.

At the beginning, I just wouldn't see why a question works that way, so I literally just sat there with the question in front of me, willing myself to look at it the way the tutors at MSLAT does. Didn't help all that much.

But then one day I got assistance from Matt Sherman over at MSLAT (I took their online course) on a particular LR question that I didn't really get even when I saw the explanation, and what he said more or less clicked. He basically said that every word is important.

I suppose it was a change in how I thought about LR? Anyways, with that in mind and a lot of time spend looking at every word, I eventually came to catch on term shifts and common ways in how LSAC messes with wording. That led to me understanding other things, and so on.

Doesn't guarantee a -0 on LR sections, but at least I went from an average of -7 to -8 combined to an average now of -1 to -5. Concentration issue on the second LR section is biting my ass right now =(

Hell, I went from an average of -8/-12 to -2/-5 because of MLSAT. And now it's up to me to get that to -0/-2. The book, to me, is LR gospel.

[0913djp]

I think Manhattan LR and PowerScore LR have certainly helped me but it is still the section I continue to see -5 to -8 on with regularity. There must be something about accuracy that I'm losing. I think a method for me to get better may be to get as many right without worrying about the last five or six. I can finish the first fifteen questions in about eighteen minutes normally. It's those last 10-12 questions that take me forever.

[magickware]

If you have the time, then it's always more preferable to strive for understanding the material more than just trying to get things right.