June 2010 LSAT LR Question Forum

[SisyphusHappy]

Didn't the question ask you to pick a question that would specifically weaken the evidence presented in favor of the argument?

Doesn't weakening the evidence weaken the argument? And has there been a consensus on the correct answer for that question? I remember a lot of discussion on everyone choosing the answer that looked least wrong.

[Hey-O]

Didn't the question ask you to pick a question that would specifically weaken the evidence presented in favor of the argument?

Doesn't weakening the evidence weaken the argument? And has there been a consensus on the correct answer for that question? I remember a lot of discussion on everyone choosing the answer that looked least wrong.

I felt good about my answer for this question. I am 99% I got it right. It was odd and a little tricky but once I figured it out it made perfect sense.

[zworykin]

Didn't the question ask you to pick a question that would specifically weaken the evidence presented in favor of the argument?

Doesn't weakening the evidence weaken the argument? And has there been a consensus on the correct answer for that question? I remember a lot of discussion on everyone choosing the answer that looked least wrong.

Yes, of course it does--just pointing out that this distinction was (if I'm recalling correctly) what allowed you to find the correct answer.

[3|ink]

Didn't the question ask you to pick a question that would specifically weaken the evidence presented in favor of the argument?

Doesn't weakening the evidence weaken the argument? And has there been a consensus on the correct answer for that question? I remember a lot of discussion on everyone choosing the answer that looked least wrong.

Yes, of course it does--just pointing out that this distinction was (if I'm recalling correctly) what allowed you to find the correct answer.

There are two ways to weaken an argument. That's the rarest of them.

[zworykin]

Didn't the question ask you to pick a question that would specifically weaken the evidence presented in favor of the argument?

Doesn't weakening the evidence weaken the argument? And has there been a consensus on the correct answer for that question? I remember a lot of discussion on everyone choosing the answer that looked least wrong.

Yes, of course it does--just pointing out that this distinction was (if I'm recalling correctly) what allowed you to find the correct answer.

There are two ways to weaken an argument. That's the rarest of them.

Indeed. But am I remembering this incorrectly? I'd swear that was what the question asked for specifically... Oh well, whatever. I know for certain that I was confident in my answer at the time, which is what counts.

[suspicious android]

Indeed. But am I remembering this incorrectly? I'd swear that was what the question asked for specifically... Oh well, whatever. I know for certain that I was confident in my answer at the time, which is what counts.

The question was basically "how are they so sure of the evidence", which in itself doesn't weaken the argument, but if the evidence wasn't valid, then that would weaken the argument.

[3|ink]

The question was basically "how are they so sure of the evidence", which in itself doesn't weaken the argument, but if the evidence wasn't valid, then that would weaken the argument.

That was the question stem? That's not how I remember it.

The more I see about this question, the more I think I may have gotten it wrong. It seemed so clear on test day.

[suspicious android]

The question was basically "how are they so sure of the evidence", which in itself doesn't weaken the argument, but if the evidence wasn't valid, then that would weaken the argument.

That was the question stem? That's not how I remember it.

The more I see about this question, the more I think I may have gotten it wrong. It seemed so clear on test day.

i'm paraphrasing significantly, also, I'm talking about the answer choices, which were questions, not the question stem, which was a different question.

[3|ink]

The question was basically "how are they so sure of the evidence", which in itself doesn't weaken the argument, but if the evidence wasn't valid, then that would weaken the argument.

That was the question stem? That's not how I remember it.

The more I see about this question, the more I think I may have gotten it wrong. It seemed so clear on test day.

i'm paraphrasing significantly, also, I'm talking about the answer choices, which were questions, not the question stem, which was a different question.

I see it now. That's in line with the answer I chose. Thanks.

It seemed too good to be true, eh?

[sundance95]

The one thing that bothers me about PS, TM and all prep companies is that they place so much emphasis on identifying question types and then some people (TLSers) get all caught up in identifying question types rather than answering the question. I've seen so many fights on this forum over what type of question this or that is, but who really cares, answer the damn thing.

I took TestMasters and this was my one beef with them, they had this maniacal focus on getting you to memorize their numbering system, even though the numbers themselves don't help you out. I had this exchange with the instructor multiple times:

"What question type is this?"
"Strengthen."
"But what TYPE is it?"
Some other person: "Three." (or whatever number it was, I never learned them)

Didn't seem to be a productive use of mental energy; maybe it helps others.

[zworykin]

The one thing that bothers me about PS, TM and all prep companies is that they place so much emphasis on identifying question types and then some people (TLSers) get all caught up in identifying question types rather than answering the question. I've seen so many fights on this forum over what type of question this or that is, but who really cares, answer the damn thing.

I took TestMasters and this was my one beef with them, they had this maniacal focus on getting you to memorize their numbering system, even though the numbers themselves don't help you out. I had this exchange with the instructor multiple times:

"What question type is this?"
"Strengthen."
"But what TYPE is it?"
Some other person: "Three." (or whatever number it was, I never learned them)

Didn't seem to be a productive use of mental energy; maybe it helps others.

:gasp:

But don't you know that there's a statistical correlation between question type 12 and answer choice C? I mean, I can't imagine going into the test without knowing that if I find a type 12, there's a 22% chance that the answer will be C and only a 19.5% chance for each of the other options.

And how can you possibly remembe--wait, nevermind. I don't know anything about their methodology, I can't even begin to make fun of it effectively. I totally agree with you though, there's clearly no point in memorizing "number--type--plan of attack" when "type--plan of attack" is all you need.

[3|ink]

The one thing that bothers me about PS, TM and all prep companies is that they place so much emphasis on identifying question types and then some people (TLSers) get all caught up in identifying question types rather than answering the question. I've seen so many fights on this forum over what type of question this or that is, but who really cares, answer the damn thing.

I took TestMasters and this was my one beef with them, they had this maniacal focus on getting you to memorize their numbering system, even though the numbers themselves don't help you out. I had this exchange with the instructor multiple times:

"What question type is this?"
"Strengthen."
"But what TYPE is it?"
Some other person: "Three." (or whatever number it was, I never learned them)

Didn't seem to be a productive use of mental energy; maybe it helps others.

In my class, my instructor advised that memorizing the numbers was only helpful to the point where no question type is a mystery to you. She said it was more important to identify what the question was asking than the corresponding number.

[ahs2123]

My TM instructor said the same thing. Knowing weaken/strengthen etc. is good enough. Someone earlier said that there are only two ways to weaken an argument...that simply isn't true. I do agree that this question was one of the rarer ways of weakening.

[suspicious android]

My TM instructor said the same thing. Knowing weaken/strengthen etc. is good enough. Someone earlier said that there are only two ways to weaken an argument...that simply isn't true. I do agree that this question was one of the rarer ways of weakening.

1. attack a premise
2. attack structure

There are no other ways to attack an argument, though there are many, many ways to do #2.

[3|ink]

My TM instructor said the same thing. Knowing weaken/strengthen etc. is good enough. Someone earlier said that there are only two ways to weaken an argument...that simply isn't true. I do agree that this question was one of the rarer ways of weakening.

Your TM instructor should have also told you that there are only two ways to weaken an argument.

[WestOfTheRest]

My TM instructor said the same thing. Knowing weaken/strengthen etc. is good enough. Someone earlier said that there are only two ways to weaken an argument...that simply isn't true. I do agree that this question was one of the rarer ways of weakening.

99% (exaggeration) of weaken questions are actually just flaw questions. In fact a flaw question is just another weaken question. The difference between the two questions is just how they want you to deal with the answers. Flaw questions usually ask you to describe the flaw in the logical structure, whereas weaken questions want you to describe in context of the information where the flaw is. And just to really irritate you, the majority of these two types of questions are actually assumption questions, since the flaw usually occurs in an implicit assumption in the argument. This is a case of attacking the structure of an argument and is the most common way to weaken an argument, as it tends to destroy the conclusion.

The second way to weaken an argument is like everyone has said, attack a premise. If you attack a premise it is not as solid of an attack because most conclusions can still be true, even if one of the premises is not. This type of question is rarely used.

It does not matter how it asks you to weaken an argument (find the flaw, evaluate with a question, evaluate structure, etc.), ultimately you are going to have to find the same flaw/weakness.

[furrywalls]

99% (exaggeration) of weaken questions are actually just flaw questions. In fact a flaw question is just another weaken question. The difference between the two questions is just how they want you to deal with the answers. Flaw questions usually ask you to describe the flaw in the logical structure, whereas weaken questions want you to describe in context of the information where the flaw is. And just to really irritate you, the majority of these two types of questions are actually assumption questions, since the flaw usually occurs in an implicit assumption in the argument.

I think this was the realization that allowed me to boost my PT range to 170-178 consistently for the month before the test. It became clear that categorizing the questions really just helps at the beginning and maybe to notice trends in missed questions. After enough PT's the stimuli and answer choices are just variations of those you have seen before and even the sections start to seem more alike.