Simple Guide on Strengthen and Weaken Questions

Intro to Strengthen and Weaken Questions

This blog is a part of the “Approach Question Type” series and like all articles in this series will focus on step 4 of the “Analyze Stimulus” step. If you need a refresher on how to approach LR questions generally, make sure to check up on our blog "How to Approach the Logical Reasoning Section.”

‍Table of Contents:

• What are Strengthen and Weaken Questions?
• Approach
• Example Walkthrough

‍

What are Strengthen and Weaken Questions?

Strengthen and weaken questions on the LSAT are types of logical reasoning questions where you're asked to analyze an argument and identify how an additional piece of information, presented in the answer choices, would affect the argument's validity. Strengthening questions offer a piece of information that makes the argument’s conclusion more likely to be true, whereas weakening will make the conclusion less likely to be true.

Strengthen Questions:

• Objective: Find the answer choice that, if true, would make the argument stronger.
• Key Focus: Look for an answer that adds support to the reasoning or addresses a potential flaw or assumption in the argument.

Weaken Questions:

• Objective: Find the answer choice that, if true, would make the argument weaker.
• Key Focus: Look for an answer that exposes a flaw, introduces a counterexample, or weakens the link between the premises and conclusion.

In both cases, understanding the core argument is crucial, as you're either reinforcing or attacking the reasoning behind it.

Strengthening Question Stems:

• "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?"
• "Which one of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the conclusion?"
• "Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument?"

Weakening Question Stems:

• "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?"
• "Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the argument?"
• "Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the conclusion?"

‍

Approach

The Truth Spectrum can be used when analyzing different answer choices in relation to the conclusion’s validity. Imagine a horizontal line representing the truth of the argument, with one end being "completely false" and the other being "completely true." The conclusion of the argument lies somewhere on this spectrum, and each answer choice will either push the argument closer to "completely true" (strengthen) or closer to "completely false" (weaken).

Strengthen: Imagine how each answer choice would shift the argument toward the "completely true" end of the spectrum. This might involve solidifying a key assumption, addressing counterexamples, or adding new supporting evidence.

Weaken: Imagine how each answer choice would shift the argument toward the "completely false" end of the spectrum. This could involve introducing a counterexample, attacking an assumption, or showing that the premises don’t necessarily lead to the conclusion.

Strengthening and weakening questions types are assumptions based questions. Assumptions on the LSAT are unstated premises that are necessary for an argument's conclusion to be true. They form the foundation of the argument, linking the premise(s) to the conclusion in a way that isn’t explicitly stated in the argument itself. To strengthen or weaken an argument’s conclusion, we will target the assumptions of the argument. There are essentially only two steps to our approach here:

1. Locate the Conclusion and Determine Validity: Understand where the conclusion currently sits on the truth spectrum based on the premises provided. How strong is the argument’s conclusion currently?
2. Assess the Assumptions: Identify any assumptions that the argument is relying on, as these are points where the argument might be vulnerable to weakening or strengthening. 

‍

Example Walkthrough

Argument:

"Studies show that people who meditate regularly have lower levels of stress. Therefore, meditating regularly reduces stress."

Analysis:

1. Conclusion and Validity: The conclusion is that meditating regularly reduces stress, based on studies showing lower stress levels in people who meditate. This could be true and could be false.

2. Identify the Assumption: The argument assumes that meditation is the cause of lower stress levels, rather than some other factor.

Direct cause and effect is hard to prove, and the conviction in which the author makes their conclusion based on one premise statement is too strong. Based on this core assumption being made, there are numerous ways to inject additional information to either weaken or strengthen the argument’s conclusion validity.

HOW TO WEAKEN: The following are all potential weakening answers:

• Attack Assumption: The study fails to account for the possibility that people who have lower levels of stress are more likely to meditate.
• Introduce alternative cause: The studies did not account for the participants' diet, which is known to also affect stress levels.
• Introduce alternative cause: Participants who meditate also tend to engage in regular physical exercise, which is known to reduce stress.
• Question Evidence: The studies were conducted on a very small and unrepresentative sample.
• Counterexample: Studies in Norway showed that people who meditate regularly have higher levels of stress.

HOW TO STRENGTHEN: On the flip end, we can strengthen the argument by doing almost the exact opposite and address some of these issues: 

• Address Assumption: The study accounts for varying levels of stress, and indicate that one’s stress level does not influence one’s likelihood of meditation practice.
• Eliminate alternative cause: The studies accounted for the participants' diet, which is known to not affect stress levels.
• Eliminate alternative cause: Participants who meditate do not tend to engage in regular physical exercise, which is known to reduce stress.
• Improve the validity of study: The studies were conducted on a large and representative sample.
• Address Counterexample: Counter studies in Norway which showed that people who meditate regularly have higher levels of stress were proven to be from faulty studies.

Important note:

S&W questions do not push the truth of the answer to the ends of the spectrum. That is, our goal is not to prove with 100% certainty that the conclusion is right or wrong either way. Our goal is simply to shift the conclusion, through support and additional evidence, one way or the other, if even slightly. 

‍