Weaken IN RESPONSE to previous speakers argument Q

[wj097]

hello,

For 2 part stimulus (2 separate arguers), if the question stem reads "weaken B's argument IN RESPONSE TO A'S ARGUMENT" can we simply ignore A's argument and sole focus on B's?? (unless I guess there is a references..., but what would that be..).

Example: PT19 S2 Q12

Thx.

[ohthatpatrick]

Great question.

In general, we shouldn't really IGNORE anything on the LSAT. We can certainly develop shrewd instincts for what probably WILL matter to the correct answer vs. what is probably just distracting filler.

In terms of 2-person arguments, if they ask you a question about the FIRST person's argument, then I think you CAN ignore the SECOND person's response.

But, when they ask you about the SECOND person's response, it's almost always referential. By that I mean it would be really hard to understand it in a vacuum. We need the context of the first person's argument to plug in what it's saying.

For example, pretend this was the 2nd person's argument:

I disagree. After all, the Post Office delivers mail on Saturdays.

There's no way to process that argument. We need to know the first person's conclusion to know the second person's "Anti-Conclusion".

In general, if they're asking us to Weaken the 2nd person's response, we want an answer that reconciles the 2nd person's premise with the 1st person's conclusion.

I would be thinking, "How can that 2nd person's premise be true, but the 1st dude's conclusion was still correct?"

The correct answer would reconcile that question.

In the example you cited, PT19, S2, Q12, we should be thinking, "How can I accept Debbie's idea that 'with humans, you don't need pain protocol because you can just ask them', yet still believe that Carl was correct to conclude that 'we should have pain protocols for humans as well'?"

The correct answer gives us an answer ... oh, because some humans, such as infants, don't really have the communicative powers that Debbie was referring to.

I see what you're saying, though. In this question, Debbie's premise/conclusion are enough to handle the question without reading Carl's argument.

But I think this is more the exception than the rule, so I would suggest you generally expect that you need to read both if they're asking about the second person's argument.