Deleted Post Forum

[PJam1989]

Deleted Post

[trqdor]

can't say that i'm a pro at these yet either, but i always keep three/four things in mind:

1) how do i strengthen/weaken the CONNECTION between the premise and the conclusion? to do this, you must know 100% what the argument is. how does the premise support the conclusion? what can i do to the premise to strengthen/weaken the argument that it claims to make?

2) (particularly with harder questions) the right answer does not have to be (and is often not) a slam dunk. meaning, the right answer won't prove that the argument is true/false. rather, it will just make it more/less believable and credible.

3) you are NOT trying to strengthen/weaken the CONCLUSION. the conclusion is the conclusion. you can't touch that ish. you can only play with the support/assumptions/evidence that LEAD to the conclusion. this is particularly difficult if you're looking for that slam dunk type of answer because the testmakers will put something you perceive as a slam dunk in one of the incorrect answer choices.

4) when the question stem throws an EXCEPT in there, it always just gets my mind all jumbled up. but you gotta remind yourself to maintain focus on the CONNECTION between the premise and conclusion. which one of these answers does NOT strengthen/weaken the CONNECTION the argument relies on?

i think these questions are tough because you have to have a more firm understanding of the argument. for flaw questions, it's one step to the conclusion. but for strengthen/weaken and also assumptions, you not only have to find the flaw, but you have to know what to do about it.

[redfred22]

can't say that i'm a pro at these yet either, but i always keep three/four things in mind:

1) how do i strengthen/weaken the CONNECTION between the premise and the conclusion? to do this, you must know 100% what the argument is. how does the premise support the conclusion? what can i do to the premise to strengthen/weaken the argument that it claims to make?

2) (particularly with harder questions) the right answer does not have to be (and is often not) a slam dunk. meaning, the right answer won't prove that the argument is true/false. rather, it will just make it more/less believable and credible.

3) you are NOT trying to strengthen/weaken the CONCLUSION. the conclusion is the conclusion. you can't touch that ish. you can only play with the support/assumptions/evidence that LEAD to the conclusion. this is particularly difficult if you're looking for that slam dunk type of answer because the testmakers will put something you perceive as a slam dunk in one of the incorrect answer choices.

4) when the question stem throws an EXCEPT in there, it always just gets my mind all jumbled up. but you gotta remind yourself to maintain focus on the CONNECTION between the premise and conclusion. which one of these answers does NOT strengthen/weaken the CONNECTION the argument relies on?

i think these questions are tough because you have to have a more firm understanding of the argument. for flaw questions, it's one step to the conclusion. but for strengthen/weaken and also assumptions, you not only have to find the flaw, but you have to know what to do about it.

Just to address point number 1: I've wrestled with this issue for a while, and sometimes I think that point 1 is misguided advice thrown out there by prep companies. Mike Kim (LSAT Trainer) has said before that strengthening/weakening the argument is the same as strengthening/weakening the conclusion. The thing you have to look out for are things like premise boosters or that go directly against the premises. Looking for a gap in the argument is a good start, but it's not always the way to find the right answer. There are frequently times when the right answer doesn't improve the link between the existing premises, but makes the conclusion more or less likely.

They want you to strengthen/weaken the argument, yes. But if you are adding another fact/premise to the existing argument in the stimulus, then you are effectively adding on to the argument and making it better. Just because there is already an existing argument in the stimulus doesn't mean you have to affect that link between that premise and conclusion. That's a great place to look, and if there is an answer that addresses that gap or issue, then you are golden. If there isn't, well, then you have to find that answer choice that along with the premise makes the conclusion more or less likely. I really feel like that advice about strengthening the link between premise and conclusion just because the question says "argument" is a little bit misguided and for some reason just keeps getting thrown out there.

[LitigatingLiar]

These questions can be a little trickier than others. Like any other assumption family question, you need to identify the core. What's the conclusion, supporting premise and what are the reasoning errors, assumptions etc. The tricky part is that answers that might typically be out of scope on other questions may not be here. If you are getting down to two answers, that's a good thing. Try to eliminate one of the other two and go with the answer that sucks the least. Don't feel bad, you're not the only one suffering from this. That's why so many of us are on this forum.