Top Law Schools

I tried to approach this like LR
premise: there is absence of consensus
conclusion: this absence of consensus makes clinical equipoise possible

I chose A(which basically says there is consensus) by eliminating BCDE but after review I found this is actually a premise weakener, which is usually false in LR..
Can a premise weakener be correct in a weaken question?

GTX999 wrote:I tried to approach this like LR
premise: there is absence of consensus
conclusion: this absence of consensus makes clinical equipoise possible

I chose A(which basically says there is consensus) by eliminating BCDE but after review I found this is actually a premise weakener, which is usually false in LR..
Can a premise weakener be correct in a weaken question?

Interesting analysis here. You're basically right in how you interpreted the author's argument. I'd say that his conclusion goes a bit further than saying the absence of consensus makes clinical equipoise possible; the absence of consensus is also why clinical equipoise is needed in the first place.

A is a premise weakener, of sorts. I've seen these kinds of answers be correct on RC Weaken several times before, but it's much less likely to happen on an LR Weaken. You may have stumbled upon one of the subtle differences between the two. In any case, good work on getting the correct answer, this means you have good instinct.