Strengthen/Weaken Questions

[DanielS272]

Hello Manhattan Prep Forum!

I've used this forum many times throughout my LSAT prep, but have yet to chime in until now. I'm primarily a self-studier and started out my LSAT prep with the PowerScore materials, and have since branched out into other materials to supplement and find what works best as I work to gain understanding of the test. That brings me to my question (and I hope this is an appropriate place to ask):

One of the books that I picked up was The LSAT Trainer. In there, it's advised on strengthen and weaken questions to focus on the argument as a whole, to isolate the premises and conclusion. It goes on to say to look out for incorrect answer choices that support or weaken the conclusion but are unrelated to the reasoning in the argument as a whole. To me, this seems to run counter to the PowerScore idea of focusing on the conclusion in our evaluation of answer choices, especially since it’s possible for new information to be brought up in the answers choices on a strengthen/weaken question. The advice in The Trainer to avoid answers that only support/weaken the conclusion seems like it could be related to the "shell game" answers, as PowerScore calls them, in which details become confused, and what may look like an answer that supports/weakens a conclusion may in fact be supporting/weakening a slightly different conclusion. Thus, my questions is: Am I totally off-base here to be skeptical of this advice? Are there really wrong answer choices that support/undermine a conclusion but are unrelated to the rest of the argument? In other words, are there sometimes answer choices that don’t relate to the premises but do in fact support/weaken the conclusion? If so, are there any examples or does anyone have any strategies for how to handle that unique instance when we see it?

I know that our job is to focus on understanding the argument as a whole, so it makes sense in part to advise against focusing exclusively on the premises or the conclusion, but then again, it seems to me to be in the realm of possibility for an answer choice to focus solely on weakening/strengthening the conclusion (or even a premise, i.e., bolstering survey data) . . . perhaps I am wrong. To be honest, this is one of those rare times where the more, the more confused I am. I feel like I was better at strengthen/weaken questions before reading too much into them. Now, I feel plagued by indecision: Does that answer choice really strengthen/weaken the argument as a whole, just the conclusion, a different conclusion...? Maybe there are just so many different variables with these questions that it's hard to generalize and have a concrete strategy. Maybe they simply require more fluidity and, for better or worse, uncertainty in what type of answer choice is going to correctly approach the task at hand. I don't know.

I DO want to understand these questions and feel confident in my ability to evaluate answer choices, but what I've read thus far has only confused me. Additionally, I want to trust my intuition on these questions, but I don't want it to be all intuition (or, worse, a misguided intuition). Perhaps I'm reading too much into all of the competing advice out there (or have grown so accustomed to finding flaws lol), but I really would appreciate someone who can point me in the right direction. Is there something critical that I'm missing? Is there some other material out there that I should invest some time into?

Finally, my post is not to discredit anyone's advice or strategies. I've found many helpful things in The Trainer (and in the PowerScore material for that matter), but this point in particular has caused me some confusion.

[ohthatpatrick]

I appreciate your final comment there. I was a Philosophy major and resented that our goal in every class seemed to be to break down what was WRONG with each philosopher's ideas. I preferred trying to find what was USABLE with each one.

I think your intuition is correct: The LSAT Trainer's advice is aimed at what works the vast majority of the time.

The vast majority of the time, an answer that seems to only deal with the conclusion will often be playing "The Shell Game".

However, if an answer brings up information that is relevant to assessing the truth value of the conclusion, then it absolutely DOES have a strengthening / weakening effect.

Another potential reason why such an answer may be wrong, however, is that it may be worded so weakly as to have barely any effect. Quantifiers like "some / not all" have very little punching power, so even if the fact is germane to the conclusion, you could easily have a more powerful answer choice addressing a much more important part of the argument.

In general, we need to have a very flexible mindset when evaluating answers choices on Str/Weak, because it's possible to Str/Weak in a lot of different ways.

Think of all these questions as court cases:
Your biggest priority is the final verdict! That's the conclusion. Every argument is a court case between The Conclusion and The Anti-Conclusion.

We're essentially having a debate over whether a Conclusion is true or false. The author always supplies some evidence supporting the idea that the conclusion is true.

There are a range of ways answers can strengthen or weaken an argument.

1. Support or attack the "move" (the argument core) we're making from premise to conclusion (Bridge ideas)

2. Protect the argument against a potential objection (Defender ideas) or make that potential objection.

3. Provide independent evidence for/against the truth of the conclusion

4. Bolster/undermine the credibility or relevance of the existing evidence for the conclusion

For the most part, correct answers feel like 1 or 2.

Strengthen/Weaken rarely use 3 or 4, but sometimes they do.
(sometimes the question stem actually asks you to specifically Str/Weak the evidence, not the whole argument ... or it asks you to Str/Weak a claim / conclusion / hypothesis, not an argument).


To show some of the flexibility that correct answers have, consider this common argument template:
"X has one advantage over Y. Thus, X is better than Y."

"The J-100 vacuum has seven different operational modes, while the Suxalot vacuum only has three different modes. Thus, if money is no object, you should buy the J-100."

The Court case here is a jury trying to decide who wins:
"You should buy the J-100" or "You should not buy the J-100"

An argument core (bridge) answer would deal with the connection between "more modes" and "you should buy".

Strengthen: (A) A vacuum's versatility is the most important consideration in buying a vacuum
Weaken: (A) People who own vacuums rarely ever use more than one or two of its available modes

Bridge ideas are nice and finite; they're limited by the unconnected terms in the Premise and Conclusion.

Objection ideas (defender ideas if you're strengthening) are infinite. You think of them by simply pretending to be the lawyer for the Anti-Conclusion.

You will grant the author that the J-100 has more modes than the Suxalot. But you will convince the jury that you should NOT buy the J-100.
- it has been known to spontaneously catch on fire
- it emits a gross odor
- all of its modes are terrible at actually vacuuming
- there is a K-200 model available with ELEVEN modes! Why settle for J-100's seven?
- the Suxalot's three modes allow it to vacuum inside, outside, or underwater, while the J-100's seven modes are just for seven different thicknesses of rug (something implying that THREE good modes could be more versatile than SEVEN lame ones)

There are many, many possible correct answers, so you just need to be clear on the court case you're arguing.You're either arguing you SHOULD or SHOULDN'T buy the J-100.

Another useful metaphor for might be this ....
- Sometimes you're cross examining the author's witness (scrutinizing the author's argument core)

- Sometimes you're calling to the stand a surprise witness (bringing in totally new information that might change our minds / raise some doubt)

[DanielS272]

I appreciate your final comment there. I was a Philosophy major and resented that our goal in every class seemed to be to break down what was WRONG with each philosopher's ideas. I preferred trying to find what was USABLE with each one.

I think your intuition is correct: The LSAT Trainer's advice is aimed at what works the vast majority of the time.

The vast majority of the time, an answer that seems to only deal with the conclusion will often be playing "The Shell Game".

However, if an answer brings up information that is relevant to assessing the truth value of the conclusion, then it absolutely DOES have a strengthening / weakening effect.

Another potential reason why such an answer may be wrong, however, is that it may be worded so weakly as to have barely any effect. Quantifiers like "some / not all" have very little punching power, so even if the fact is germane to the conclusion, you could easily have a more powerful answer choice addressing a much more important part of the argument.

In general, we need to have a very flexible mindset when evaluating answers choices on Str/Weak, because it's possible to Str/Weak in a lot of different ways.

Think of all these questions as court cases:
Your biggest priority is the final verdict! That's the conclusion. Every argument is a court case between The Conclusion and The Anti-Conclusion.

We're essentially having a debate over whether a Conclusion is true or false. The author always supplies some evidence supporting the idea that the conclusion is true.

There are a range of ways answers can strengthen or weaken an argument.

1. Support or attack the "move" (the argument core) we're making from premise to conclusion (Bridge ideas)

2. Protect the argument against a potential objection (Defender ideas) or make that potential objection.

3. Provide independent evidence for/against the truth of the conclusion

4. Bolster/undermine the credibility or relevance of the existing evidence for the conclusion

For the most part, correct answers feel like 1 or 2.

Strengthen/Weaken rarely use 3 or 4, but sometimes they do.
(sometimes the question stem actually asks you to specifically Str/Weak the evidence, not the whole argument ... or it asks you to Str/Weak a claim / conclusion / hypothesis, not an argument).


To show some of the flexibility that correct answers have, consider this common argument template:
"X has one advantage over Y. Thus, X is better than Y."

"The J-100 vacuum has seven different operational modes, while the Suxalot vacuum only has three different modes. Thus, if money is no object, you should buy the J-100."

The Court case here is a jury trying to decide who wins:
"You should buy the J-100" or "You should not buy the J-100"

An argument core (bridge) answer would deal with the connection between "more modes" and "you should buy".

Strengthen: (A) A vacuum's versatility is the most important consideration in buying a vacuum
Weaken: (A) People who own vacuums rarely ever use more than one or two of its available modes

Bridge ideas are nice and finite; they're limited by the unconnected terms in the Premise and Conclusion.

Objection ideas (defender ideas if you're strengthening) are infinite. You think of them by simply pretending to be the lawyer for the Anti-Conclusion.

You will grant the author that the J-100 has more modes than the Suxalot. But you will convince the jury that you should NOT buy the J-100.
- it has been known to spontaneously catch on fire
- it emits a gross odor
- all of its modes are terrible at actually vacuuming
- there is a K-200 model available with ELEVEN modes! Why settle for J-100's seven?
- the Suxalot's three modes allow it to vacuum inside, outside, or underwater, while the J-100's seven modes are just for seven different thicknesses of rug (something implying that THREE good modes could be more versatile than SEVEN lame ones)

There are many, many possible correct answers, so you just need to be clear on the court case you're arguing.You're either arguing you SHOULD or SHOULDN'T buy the J-100.

Another useful metaphor for might be this ....
- Sometimes you're cross examining the author's witness (scrutinizing the author's argument core)

- Sometimes you're calling to the stand a surprise witness (bringing in totally new information that might change our minds / raise some doubt)

Wow! Thank you so much for the thorough reply! This is so much more than I hoping to receive. Your explanation really bridges the gap in my understanding and gives me a better perspective on these questions (I think I was developing a sort of tunnel vision that was inhibiting my ability to see the bigger picture). This definitely changes the way I've been thinking about these problems and approaching them. I'm going to let your explanation sit with me for a few days and allow it to really sink in, but if I have any follow-up questions as I work through more strengthen/weaken problems, I'll certainly reach back out. Once again, thank you!

[HannahQ334]

We're basically having a civil argument about whether a Conclusion is valid or false. The creator dependably supplies some proof supporting the conclusion is valid. You will give the creator that the J-100 has a bigger number of modes than the Suxalot. Yet, you will persuade the jury that you ought NOT purchase the J-100.