Strengthen and Weaken - LSAT Reading

Locate the exact claim being supported or attacked. You must know precisely what you're strengthening or weakening before evaluating options.

Both: identify the conclusion and the evidence offered for it. Understanding the argument structure helps identify what support or attack would be effective.

An unstated assumption linking evidence to conclusion. Arguments often rely on hidden assumptions that connect premises to conclusions.

Evidence ruling out alternative causes. Eliminating alternatives makes the proposed cause more likely to be correct.

A plausible alternative cause explaining the effect. Alternative causes show the stated cause may not be responsible for the effect.

Evidence the sample is representative of the population. Representative samples allow valid generalizations to the broader population.

Evidence the sample is biased or unrepresentative. Biased samples lead to invalid generalizations about the population.

Show the compared cases share the relevant features. Analogies work when the compared situations are relevantly similar.

Show a relevant disanalogy between the cases. Disanalogies show the comparison fails due to important differences.

Evidence the expert is credible and speaking within expertise. Authority arguments depend on the expert's qualifications and objectivity.

Evidence of bias, poor track record, or lack of relevant expertise. These factors undermine the expert's reliability as a source.

Choose the one with the greatest impact on the stated claim. The best answer has the strongest effect on the argument's validity.

Irrelevant to the specific claim being evaluated. Irrelevant information neither strengthens nor weakens the argument.

Changing the topic away from the argument’s conclusion. Topic shifts distract from the actual claim being evaluated.

Show confounding, reverse causation, or coincidence. These alternatives explain correlation without the claimed causal relationship.

Support. Strengthen/Weaken questions ask for support, not proof or restatement.

Eliminate it; prioritize impact on the main claim. Focus on the central claim, not peripheral points in the passage.

A counterexample to the forecast. Counterexamples directly contradict predictions, weakening them most effectively.

Choose the option that most decreases support for the passage claim. Weakening means providing evidence that makes the claim less likely to be true.

The option showing the sample is biased, small, or unrepresentative. Flawed samples undermine the validity of generalizations.

The option showing the sample is representative and sufficiently broad. Representative samples make generalizations more reliable.

Identify the conclusion and the evidence the author uses to support it. Understanding the argument structure helps you target what needs strengthening/weakening.

An unstated link required for the evidence to support the conclusion. Assumptions bridge gaps between evidence and conclusion but aren't explicitly stated.

The option that makes the assumption more likely to be true. Strengthening an assumption strengthens the entire argument built on it.

The option that makes the assumption less likely or unnecessary. Attacking an assumption undermines the logical connection in the argument.

Rule out a plausible alternative cause or interpretation. Eliminating alternatives makes the author's explanation more likely correct.

Provide a plausible alternative cause or interpretation. Alternative explanations reduce the necessity of the author's conclusion.

Support causation by ruling out confounds or confirming the causal mechanism. Eliminating confounds or showing mechanism strengthens causal claims.

Undermine causation by proposing confounds, reverse causation, or coincidence. These factors break the causal link the argument depends on.