weakening Question Forum

[hope170+]

Hi,

I have a clarifying question about lR weakening questions. I previously used the loophole book to understand the method I should be using to approach certain questions, and with the weakening question, the stronger the language, the better. However, in LSAT 29 question 16, I was down to two options, A and B, given that B used "some languages"--- weak language--- and there is no way to know whether the specific languages addressed in the stimulus would account in some languages, I picked A. Even though I thought B was a better answer, but because it said"some languages," I was hesitant to pick it. Also, I did not know what was wrong with A, since it was talking about them having a word for fish, which relates to the sea. However, my answer was wrong. I think the way I am approaching these kinds of questions is terrible. Can someone please explain/ or give me a breakdown of how they would have approached this question and what is wrong with my method? Is using the weak/ strong language method with certain questions a bad approach?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

[crownlsat]

A is wrong because having a word for "fish" does not necessarily mean that the Proto-Indo-Europeans lived near the sea or the ocean. There are other types of bodies of water such as rivers. Also, the fish could have been traded for or one of a number of other explanations.

B is right because it actually undermines the logic of the argument, which is what you are trying to do on a weaken question. By stating that there is not necessarily a link between the word use and the elements of the environment, the flow from "no word for sea or ocean" to "therefore there was no sea or ocean" is undermined.

Hopefully this answers your question.

I am an LSAT tutor with 5+ years of experience of producing exceptional results and recently coached a student to a 180 on the June 2024 LSAT. Feel free to check out my website: crownlsat.com and contact me at crownlsat@gmail.com