Help with Weaken questions! Forum

[mlmayes]

The LR questions I seemed to be consistently missing are the Weaken ones. What's happening is that I'm eliminating the correct answer and confidently choosing an incorrect answer. These aren't questions I make a note to come back to or spend any time agonizing over, I'm always pretty sure I've chosen the correct answer and move on. I've reread (and taken notes from) the PowerScore chapter on these questions and am taking care to focus on the conclusion of the argument when selecting my answer. When I take a look at the answer key, I do understand why the answer is correct but sometimes have a harder time seeing why my answer is wrong.

Here's my thought process from two questions from PT61:

Section II

11. I chose C because I thought this weakened the idea of the conclusion that it is a drivers' possessiveness of the space that causes them to take longer to pull out (instead, it takes longer because it is more difficult when a car is waiting nearby). I immediately eliminated A, B, D, and E. Unfortunately, I can't remember why I eliminated A (the correct answer)....I definitely see why A is the right answer, but I'm having a hard time recognizing why I fell into the trap of picking C.

20. Again, I confidently eliminated answers A, C, D (the correct answer), and E. I see why B is wrong (and definitely understand why D is right) and in retrospect don't know why I picked it!

Help! I obviously need a new approach to answering these questions and I'm stumped.

[danny_columbuslsat]

I'm not sure if you're doing this already, but in case you aren't: For these questions you should first identify the flaw in the argument, then try to prephrase the correct answer: For example, in number 11 I would first point out that just because it takes longer to leave the space when another car is waiting (and longer yet when they honk), this doesn't necessarily mean that drivers are feeling possessive of the spaces- surely there are other explanations for why it takes longer. Come up with another explanation, and if that explanation is true, it would weaken the argument. Of course you won't always be able to prephrase exactly what they're looking for, but it should help you be able to eliminate the incorrect answer choices and pick the answer choice that is most similar to what you were looking for.

[Thelaw23]

Hey!

If you are constantly getting weaken questions wrong but are good with the strengthen questions, I would recommend trying to convert the question. You do this by taking the conclusion and creating a null of it. You negate the conclusion, either by converting it to the opposite or an alternative theory. Then you find the AC that STRENGTHENS. That would be the right answer in the weaken question.

[RamTitan]

I'm in the same boat; roughly half of all the LR questions I get wrong are weaken questions

[mlmayes]

Hey!

If you are constantly getting weaken questions wrong but are good with the strengthen questions, I would recommend trying to convert the question. You do this by taking the conclusion and creating a null of it. You negate the conclusion, either by converting it to the opposite or an alternative theory. Then you find the AC that STRENGTHENS. That would be the right answer in the weaken question.

I like this idea! I'll give it a try.

Thanks for the responses guys!

[somethingElse]

Post removed...

[RamTitan]

5: Pre-phrase something that might weaken the reasoning/point out the flaw. The correct answer for these will fall in line with this sentiment, nearly always: "Even though (Premise(s)) are true, conclusion still doesn't follow."

That piece of advice is huge. Thanks!

[AReasonableMan]

5: Pre-phrase something that might weaken the reasoning/point out the flaw. The correct answer for these will fall in line with this sentiment, nearly always: "Even though (Premise(s)) are true, conclusion still doesn't follow."

That piece of advice is huge. Thanks!

On more difficult questions where your prediction doesn't match an answer choice, you could break down the argument as a logic statement:

If Fact -> Conclusion.

Just look for something that makes it less likely the -> is justified.

Example: The Cavaliers will win the championship because LeBron James is the best player.
Logic statement is Best Player -> Championship
Weakener: LeBron has been the best player for 10 years, and has only won two championships.

This is admittedly a pretty dumb example, but the concept works with any assumption related question (roughly half the LR section). If you really get formal logic down you can manipulate the test like play-doh, which either speaks to a flaw in the test or a desire to disproportionately reward those who master formal logic.

[somethingElse]

Post removed...

[Thelaw23]

5: Pre-phrase something that might weaken the reasoning/point out the flaw. The correct answer for these will fall in line with this sentiment, nearly always: "Even though (Premise(s)) are true, conclusion still doesn't follow."

That piece of advice is huge. Thanks!

Be very careful with prephrasing. It worked on previous tests, but the new tests have answer choices that are wrong but include parts of the obvious prephrase in it. Ap to a flaw question they will trick you into picking an answer choice that sounds like the correct obvious prephrase, meanwhile the correct answer is a flaw that is still in the stimulus but less obvious.

[somethingElse]

Post removed...