Q12 - Biologists have noted reproductive

[michellemyxu]

I have a question about (A): As earlier posts mentioned, (A) attacks the author's premises. I wonder if, in general, we can or cannot attack premises in Weaken questions? If we can, is A wrong because we shouldn't assume that the funder of the studies has anything to do with the studies' result?

Thank you.

[728610]

I have a question about (A): As earlier posts mentioned, (A) attacks the author's premises. I wonder if, in general, we can or cannot attack premises in Weaken questions? If we can, is A wrong because we shouldn't assume that the funder of the studies has anything to do with the studies' result?

Thank you.

It is really a good question. I wanna share some of my thoughts.

In general, I think we can attack premise in Weaken questions although it is not common to see. As we can see PT 44 S2 Q20.
However, there are probably two problems with A.
The first problem is what you said: we could not assume the funder imposed bad influence on the study while he funded the study.
The second problem might be the word "Some". There might be 100 studies about the fish recovery, but maybe just 2 of them (some) are funded by paper manufacturers, which does not weaken the argument.

I hope it will work for you.

[RogerD345]

Hi. Can Patrick of ohthatPatrick possibly help to explain this Q? I find Patrick's explanation is always crystal clear and so easy to understand; I believe he is the best explainer of LR and RC (possibly in LG too, just i haven't asked Patrick's help in LG yet) in all of the LSAT instructors in Not just in ManhattanPrep, but the Entire world of online LSAT instructors. *FTR, , my family bought and I also own a couple of ManhattanPrep Company's LSAT Help books and lessons (So I have the rights to ask from ManhattanPrep); whatever the reason, Online help from Patrick simply provides the easiest and most comprehensive help.