- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 632
- Joined: Feb 06, 2024
- Wed Aug 20, 2025 4:36 pm
#114103
For the question you cited, the comparison is between nuclear power plants and conventional power plants. The author is anti-nuclear power plant becuase they are more expensive to build than conventional, even though the fuel is lower.
So, if we wanted to strengthen their conclusion (support their argument that conventional is better) we would use their own points - we would find something that addresses the cost of nuclear plants. The correct answer choice in this question said that nuclear plants also have a shorter lifetime than conventional plants - therefore, they are definitely more expensive than conventional because not only are they more expensive to build, they don't last as long!
Using the same strategy, if we wanted to weaken this argument, we would have to find something related to cost, because that's all the author used in their argument. If nuclear power plants had a much longer lifetime than conventional, which made them more cost effective in the long term, that might weaken the argument and be a good answer choice.
Does that make sense?
Dancingbambarina wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 1:48 am I just made an observation between stimuli that compare.I am not sure I understand what you're saying or asking regarding conclusions. Conclusions are absolutely relevant to weakening or strengthening an argument.
This question juxtaposed with another question in the 3rd section of this LSAT - Section 3 No.3 (nuclear power plant feasibility).
In both, a stimulus compares and serves as evidence for the conclusion. Then to strengthen or weaken, we add info that w ligeakens a side of the comparison, and consequently this strengthens or weakens the conclusion.
I've noticed that the concluion is not relative but straightup absolute in concluding in both conclusions that you need to go with one option.
Since the conclusion isn't relative, I am struggling to see HOW we can strengthen or weaken an argument by adjusting the comparison when it's only between two things and even if that's possible, how could it affect an absolute conclusion that may take everything into account (this is only ONE comparison made and there could be a flurry of other reasons why the conclusion holds or does not hold as is)
Is there an assumption that a comparison has been made and hence is enough to have that made influence on the conclusion?
Thank you so much.
For the question you cited, the comparison is between nuclear power plants and conventional power plants. The author is anti-nuclear power plant becuase they are more expensive to build than conventional, even though the fuel is lower.
So, if we wanted to strengthen their conclusion (support their argument that conventional is better) we would use their own points - we would find something that addresses the cost of nuclear plants. The correct answer choice in this question said that nuclear plants also have a shorter lifetime than conventional plants - therefore, they are definitely more expensive than conventional because not only are they more expensive to build, they don't last as long!
Using the same strategy, if we wanted to weaken this argument, we would have to find something related to cost, because that's all the author used in their argument. If nuclear power plants had a much longer lifetime than conventional, which made them more cost effective in the long term, that might weaken the argument and be a good answer choice.
Does that make sense?