LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

User avatar
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 981
  • Joined: Jun 26, 2013
Hi VamosRafa19!

In a Weaken question, we just need an answer choice that hurts the argument, it doesn't have to completely destroy it. So yes, even if revisions of the current code are underway, they could take years to implement so maybe it is still better to go with the alternate code. But the fact that revisions are underway to eliminate the problems with the code that the author thinks necessitate the switch does weaken his argument that switching codes is totally necessary. The author's argument is that we need to switch to the alternate code because the old code has problems. But if, as answer choice (C) states, the old code could be fixed, then we don't necessarily need to switch to a new code.

Also, the argument does not rely on a specific timeline for when these problems need to be fixed. "Imperative" does not have a specific meaning in terms of the timing. Furthermore, "imperative" is just a word that the author uses in the conclusion but they do not back it up with any reasons in the premises as to why this switch needs to happen quickly. Thus, imperative as used here seems to have less to do with urgency and more to do with importance. So I wouldn't get too fixated on the timing here.

Hope this helps!

  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: Nov 14, 2020
Thanks Kelsey!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.