keep getting "easy" weakening questions wrong

[crispycrispr]

I keep getting the easier weakening questions wrong, no matter how long I spend on them, and I really don't understand why. I feel like I keep getting lost in the lengthy stimulus/answer choices even after i have isolated the conclusion, and I don't see how they're supposed to be easy (they're the ones in the top 10 questions). Help

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Crispycrispr!

It would help to know a little more about what's specifically tripping you up with Weaken questions. Are there examples of questions you've missed? What types of answer choice traps have you fallen for? Why didn't you pick the one that ended up being the correct answer? Do you know the ways to attack causal arguments? Have you been identifying causal reasoning? How are you prephrasing what it is you are looking for in the correct answer choice?

Without more specifics, here are some general Weaken tips to make sure that you are keeping in mind:

With Weaken questions, it is definitely important to correctly identify and focus on the conclusion. But it's also important to think about how the premises are supporting that conclusion. Your task in a Weaken question is to bring in new information that shows that the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises. To do this, it is often helpful to not just identify the conclusion and the premises, but also to really think about the relationship between them and make sure that you understand how the premises are supporting the conclusion. So make sure that you aren't completely ignoring the premises.

Remember that arguments in Weaken questions are flawed. This can sometimes make it tricky to really understand the argument. But it's worth taking the time to break it down into each piece and make sure you understand how those pieces are working together. It's easy to get lost in a long stimulus no matter what type of question it is. But if you don't understand the stimulus, the answer choices are not going to help you out. So make sure you invest the time upfront in breaking down the stimulus and understanding the argument so that it makes the process of going through the answer choices much easier and faster. Just take one statement at a time and think about how it relates to the other statements. Is there anything to support the statement? Is it supporting another statement? Is it just offering context for the argument? Etc. Practicing with Method of Reasoning and Flaw in the Reasoning questions can really help you focus on argument structure and how premises support conclusions, which will be helpful for Weaken questions.

When you prephrase, you want to prephrase more broadly rather than super specifically. There are multiple ways to attack any argument and you don't know what options the LSAT is going to give you. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't come up with any prephrase. It means that you should think more broadly about what you need the answer choice to do, rather than what the answer choice is going to say. So let's say I have a stimulus in which the conclusion is "The tax increase would do more harm than good." To attack the conclusion that the tax increase is harmful, I need to show that the tax increase has benefits. So any answer choice that describes a benefit of the tax increase would attack that argument. If the conclusion is "Consumers have little reason to complain about this practice," my prephrase would be to find an answer choice that gives consumers a reason to complain about that practice. Remember that the correct answer doesn't need to kill an argument; it just needs to hurt it as much as you can with the options you've been given.

And remember to be on the lookout for causal reasoning since it is very common in Weaken questions. It is also easy to prephrase how to weaken a causal argument: 1) Find an alternate cause; 2) Show that when the cause occurs, the effect does not occur; 3) Show that when the effect occurs, the cause does not occur; 4) Show that the stated relationship is actually reversed; or 5) Find a problem with the data. So if you have a causal conclusion, you will have your prephrase ready to go!

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[crispycrispr]

Hi Kelsey!

Thank you for responding! I think I'm having most trouble with seeing how answer choices relate to my prephrase. My prephrases might be too vague? The way I do it is to think what answer would lead to the conclusion to not necessarily follow/be weakened because often times I can't really come up with exact prephrases or I come up with prephrases that don't show up on in the answer choices. The questions on astronomy especially confuse me, e.g. June 1993 LR 2.24 and June 1996 LR 2.9 because I find all the language about orbit and planets so unfamiliar. After I did those, I went on to look up other astronomy-based questions, which happened to be a method of reasoning question as you suggested, from PT 87 LR 3.8, which I did get right after breaking the stimulus down, but it took me a veeeery long time. I often times have trouble understanding the stimulus with astronomy, so your advice on how to break the stimulus down definitely helps.

Other times, I find that the answer choice's wording confuse me, such as answer choice (E) from Oct 2012 LR 1.1. "Peach production" made me think about the family producing more peach, which I thought would then weaken because it would make less sense to plant peaches if they don't produce enough. Similarly, for the correct answer to that question (A), I thought that if apricots sold at a higher price, it would cost the family more to buy, and that answer would naturally strengthen the argument. I don't know if it's just because my brain somehow wrongly understands simple LSAT language, or if LSAT did it on purpose.

[Adam Tyson]

It looks to me like two things may be happening that are getting in your way, crispycrispr. First, you are focusing too much on the topic of the stimulus and allowing yourself to get wrapped up in the details. It shouldn't matter if the question is about astronomy, or agriculture, or music, or philosophy. Focus on the structure of the argument (which is why Kelsey recommended you look at Method and Flaw questions). See what's wrong with the structure. Then, prephrase an answer that attacks that flaw in the structure. Take this argument, for example, which is entirely gibbereish:


"Blumpers routinely grow more squampish whenever merklets dampen the puffs. Thus, we should do all we can to keep the puffs dry, rather than allowing the merklets to dampen them."

The conclusion is the last sentence. The author wants to prove that we should keep the puffs dry. Why? Because damp puffs may contribute to squampish blumpers.

Now, attack this argument. We need an answer that suggests that perhaps we should NOT try to keep the puffs dry. Any answer that suggests keeping them dry may not be a good idea would do. Maybe there are advantages to damp puffs that outweigh the possible harms of squampish blumpers? Maybe squampish blumpers are actually a good thing, so we should leave the puffs alone? Maybe dry puffs cause even bigger problems than damp ones? ANY disadvantage to doing what the author said we should do, or any advantage in not doing it, would raise doubts about the conclusion. We don't need to know anything about what these things are or how they related to each other. We just need to focus on the conclusion and the structure of the argument that led to it, and then respond with some contrary evidence. We just need to raise some doubt.

The second problem I see is tougher to deal with, and it has to do with your applying the answers to the facts in the stimulus. If the family is growing peach or apricot trees on their farm, they are the ones selling the fruit, not buying it! Higher selling prices are to their advantage, and have nothing to do with the cost of the trees or the cost to plant and grow them. In that argument, the author is arguing that peach trees make more sense, so your job is to find a problem with peach trees or an advantage of apricot trees. If peach production is down, that might be an advantage for planting peach trees, since it suggests that there may be more demand due to a shrinking supply. Without knowing more about why production is down, though, we cannot say for sure if this is an advantage or a disadvantage, so we can't say that it weakens or strengthens the argument, and the fact that we don't know makes that a bad answer. Keep your prephrase simple and directed against the conclusion. Look for something that is contrary to the conclusion, that raises doubts about it. And be sure to avoid too much speculation, as the correct answer should clearly weaken the argument without any help from us!