Strengthen and Weaken
Help Questions
LSAT Reading › Strengthen and Weaken
Passage:
Some legal scholars argue that “sunset clauses” in legislation—provisions that cause a law to expire unless renewed—improve democratic accountability by forcing periodic reconsideration. The reasoning is that sunsets prevent outdated policies from persisting by inertia and require legislators to justify continuation in light of new evidence. Proponents also claim that sunsets can reduce the influence of emergency-driven lawmaking by ensuring that extraordinary measures are temporary unless affirmatively endorsed.
Critics respond that sunsets can create uncertainty that undermines long-term planning, especially for regulated industries and public agencies. They also argue that renewal votes can become perfunctory, with legislators extending laws without meaningful review. In addition, sunsets may empower small factions to extract concessions by threatening to block renewal of widely supported programs.
A conditional defense holds that sunsets enhance accountability chiefly when renewal procedures are structured to promote genuine evaluation—for example, by requiring impact assessments, public hearings, and clear criteria for reauthorization. In such cases, the sunset functions as a trigger for deliberation rather than as a mere deadline. Without these procedural supports, sunsets may increase instability without improving oversight.
Thus, the value of sunset clauses depends on whether institutional design transforms renewal into substantive review.
Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the author's argument?
In jurisdictions that coupled sunset clauses with mandatory impact assessments and hearings, renewal debates frequently resulted in substantive amendments or termination of ineffective programs, while jurisdictions lacking such procedures rarely altered expiring laws.
Several scholars argue that independent courts, rather than legislatures, are better suited to evaluating the effectiveness of laws.
One statute with a sunset clause was renewed for five years rather than for ten years after a legislative vote.
A small survey found that some citizens were slightly more aware of a law’s existence when the law was discussed during renewal debates.
Some legislatures schedule renewal votes near the end of their sessions when time is limited.
Explanation
This question asks what would strengthen the author's argument that sunset clauses enhance accountability chiefly when renewal procedures promote genuine evaluation through structured review processes. The author argues that sunsets function effectively as triggers for deliberation when they require impact assessments, public hearings, and clear reauthorization criteria, rather than serving as mere deadlines. Choice B provides empirical evidence strongly supporting this conditional framework by showing that jurisdictions coupling sunset clauses with mandatory impact assessments and hearings frequently resulted in substantive amendments or program termination, while jurisdictions lacking such procedures rarely altered expiring laws. This demonstrates that the procedural supports the author identifies are indeed crucial for transforming renewal into meaningful oversight rather than perfunctory extension. Choice C, advocating for independent courts, shifts authority away from the legislative accountability mechanisms the author analyzes.
A public policy analyst argues that open data portals maintained by municipal governments increase government accountability primarily by enabling independent oversight. The analyst claims that when budgets, procurement contracts, and performance metrics are published in machine-readable formats, journalists, researchers, and civic groups can detect irregularities and publicize them, thereby pressuring officials to correct mismanagement. The analyst concedes that simply posting data does not guarantee use, but maintains that the marginal cost of oversight falls dramatically once data are standardized and accessible. The analyst concludes that cities that implement robust open data portals will tend to experience fewer instances of wasteful spending over time.
Some observers counter that open data initiatives often focus on low-stakes datasets while leaving the most consequential information unpublished or difficult to interpret. The analyst replies that portal quality varies and that robust portals are precisely those that prioritize high-value datasets.
Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the author's argument?
In some cities, open data portals include interactive tools that allow users to visualize trends without downloading datasets.
Some municipal officials initially resisted open data portals because they feared that data publication would lead to misinterpretation by the public.
A few cities without open data portals have reduced wasteful spending after adopting stricter internal auditing procedures.
Across a large set of cities with robust open data portals, wasteful spending did not decline because oversight groups rarely had the expertise or resources to analyze the published procurement and budget data.
In several cities, the number of datasets available on open data portals increased steadily over the first three years after launch.
Explanation
The policy analyst argues that open data portals increase government accountability by enabling independent oversight—when data are published in accessible formats, oversight groups can detect irregularities and pressure officials to correct mismanagement, leading to fewer instances of wasteful spending. Answer choice B directly weakens this causal chain by showing that across many cities with robust open data portals, wasteful spending did not decline because oversight groups rarely had the expertise or resources to analyze the published data. This breaks the analyst's mechanism at a crucial link: even with accessible data, the predicted oversight and resulting accountability improvements don't materialize if groups lack analytical capacity. Answer choice C might seem relevant because it mentions reduced wasteful spending, but it describes an alternative method (internal auditing) rather than addressing whether open data portals achieve their intended effect. In RC strengthen and weaken questions, focus on evidence that directly tests whether the author's proposed mechanism actually produces the predicted outcome, not on alternative approaches to the same goal.
A literary critic argues that translating poetry should prioritize preserving a poem's formal constraints—such as meter and rhyme—over preserving literal semantic content. The critic contends that in many poems, formal patterning is not ornamental but constitutive of meaning: sound, rhythm, and repetition generate effects that cannot be replicated through paraphrase. The critic acknowledges that strict formal imitation can force departures from literal accuracy, but maintains that readers of translated poetry seek an experience analogous to that of the original, and that form is a primary vehicle of that experience. The critic concludes that, at least for highly formal poems, a translation that preserves meter and rhyme will often be closer to the original in what matters most than a translation that is semantically precise but formally free.
Some translators argue that forcing rhyme in the target language can introduce clichés and distort tone, thereby undermining the very experience the critic wants to preserve. The critic replies that skilled translators can avoid such pitfalls through inventive diction.
Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the author's argument?
In reader studies of highly formal poems, translations that preserved meter and rhyme were more consistently rated as conveying the original poem's tone and emotional impact than semantically literal but formally free translations.
Some publishers prefer translations that are easy to read aloud at public events, regardless of how closely they track the source text.
Certain languages have more readily available rhyming words than others, which can make rhymed translation easier in some language pairs.
Some poets have written successful poems in free verse that do not employ regular meter or end rhyme.
In a few cases, translators who attempted to preserve rhyme relied on archaic expressions that were uncommon in contemporary usage.
Explanation
The literary critic argues that translating poetry should prioritize preserving formal constraints like meter and rhyme over literal semantic content, because formal patterning generates effects that cannot be replicated through paraphrase and provides the experiential core of poetry. Answer choice A strongly supports this argument by providing empirical evidence from reader studies showing that translations preserving meter and rhyme were more consistently rated as conveying the original poem's tone and emotional impact than semantically literal but formally free translations. This directly validates the critic's claim that form is the primary vehicle for recreating the original poem's experience. Answer choice C might seem like a weakness because it mentions problems with rhymed translation, but it only addresses occasional implementation issues rather than challenging the fundamental principle. When evaluating RC strengthen and weaken questions, look for evidence that directly tests the author's core theoretical claim—here, that formal preservation better captures what matters most in poetry translation.
A philosopher of technology argues that algorithmic decision systems used in hiring can be made meaningfully fairer by improving data quality and by auditing outcomes, rather than by abandoning automation altogether. The philosopher notes that human hiring is also prone to bias and inconsistency, and contends that algorithms can be tested, monitored, and adjusted in ways that informal human judgments cannot. The argument concedes that historical data may encode past discrimination, but claims that careful feature selection, bias mitigation techniques, and ongoing audits can reduce disparate impacts while preserving predictive usefulness. The philosopher concludes that, provided employers commit to transparency about evaluation criteria and to regular third-party audits, algorithmic hiring can improve fairness relative to purely human screening.
Some critics respond that employers will lack incentives to conduct meaningful audits, especially if audits reveal legal or reputational risks. The philosopher replies that regulation and market pressure can supply those incentives.
Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the author's argument?
Some employers use algorithmic tools for tasks other than hiring, such as scheduling shifts and forecasting product demand.
Some job applicants report that they would like employers to provide slightly more feedback after a rejection, regardless of whether an algorithm was used.
In some jurisdictions, anti-discrimination agencies have issued general guidance documents describing best practices for fair hiring.
In controlled comparisons, audited algorithmic hiring systems that used improved training data produced smaller disparate impacts than unaudited systems and than human-only screening, while maintaining similar job-performance prediction.
A few highly publicized cases have involved algorithmic systems that exhibited unexpected biases after being deployed for several years.
Explanation
The philosopher argues that algorithmic hiring systems can be made fairer than human screening through improved data quality, bias mitigation techniques, and regular auditing, provided employers commit to transparency and third-party audits. Answer choice B powerfully strengthens this argument by providing controlled comparison evidence showing that audited algorithmic systems using improved training data produced smaller disparate impacts than both unaudited systems and human-only screening, while maintaining similar job-performance prediction. This empirical evidence directly supports the philosopher's central claims that algorithms can be tested and improved in ways human judgment cannot, and that properly implemented algorithmic systems can enhance fairness. Answer choice D might seem concerning because it mentions algorithmic biases, but these are cases without the safeguards the philosopher advocates, making them irrelevant to the argument about properly audited systems. Remember that in RC strengthen and weaken questions, the strongest evidence directly demonstrates that the author's proposed solution achieves its intended outcomes when implemented as recommended.
Passage:
Some legal scholars argue that restorative justice programs in criminal cases can reduce recidivism by fostering offender accountability and repairing harm to victims and communities. They emphasize structured dialogues, restitution agreements, and community support as mechanisms that may reintegrate offenders more effectively than incarceration. Proponents cite programs in which participants report higher satisfaction and in which some jurisdictions observe lower reoffense rates among participants.
Critics argue that restorative justice may be inappropriate for serious offenses and may pressure victims to participate. They also question whether lower recidivism rates reflect selection effects, since participants are often screened for willingness to accept responsibility and may already be less likely to reoffend. Moreover, inconsistent program quality can make outcomes difficult to generalize.
A conditional endorsement holds that restorative justice is most defensible when participation is genuinely voluntary, when programs employ trained facilitators, and when evaluation designs address selection effects through careful comparison groups. Under these conditions, observed reductions in recidivism are more plausibly attributable to the program rather than to participant characteristics.
Thus, restorative justice should be evaluated not as a uniform alternative to punishment, but as a context-dependent intervention whose benefits depend on safeguards and rigorous assessment.
Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the author's argument?
In several jurisdictions, restorative justice programs were offered only for property crimes rather than for violent offenses.
A small survey found that some participants felt slightly more optimistic after completing a restorative justice conference.
One program’s facilitators reported that sessions were easier to schedule when they were held in the evenings.
A randomized evaluation in which eligible offenders were assigned either to restorative justice or to traditional processing found lower recidivism in the restorative group when programs used trained facilitators and victim participation was voluntary.
Some critics argue that victim satisfaction, not recidivism, should be the primary metric for judging restorative justice.
Explanation
This question asks what would strengthen the author's argument that restorative justice should be evaluated as a context-dependent intervention whose benefits depend on specific safeguards. The author emphasizes that the defensibility requires voluntary participation, trained facilitators, and evaluation designs that address selection effects through careful comparison groups. Choice B provides ideal empirical evidence supporting this framework by describing a randomized evaluation that assigned eligible offenders to either restorative justice or traditional processing, finding lower recidivism when programs used trained facilitators and victim participation was voluntary. The randomization addresses selection effects, while the specified conditions match the author's recommended safeguards, demonstrating that rigorous assessment can indeed show program benefits under proper implementation. Choice C, arguing for different metrics, doesn't address the effectiveness of the author's proposed safeguards for reducing recidivism.
Passage:
Some political scientists argue that compulsory voting increases democratic legitimacy because election outcomes better reflect the preferences of the entire eligible population rather than of a self-selected subset. They note that when turnout is low, elected officials may cater to frequent voters and neglect groups that participate less often.
Critics respond that forcing participation can dilute the quality of electoral decisions if many compelled voters are uninformed or indifferent. They also contend that legitimacy depends not only on representativeness but on voluntary consent; an election in which participation is coerced may be less legitimate even if turnout is high.
The author argues that compulsory voting can improve policy responsiveness without necessarily undermining legitimacy. The author reasons that if nonvoters are disproportionately drawn from groups whose interests are systematically underrepresented, increasing their turnout will pressure politicians to address those interests. The author qualifies the claim: compulsory voting is likely to have this effect only when enforcement is modest and when voters have easy access to information, such as through nonpartisan voter guides.
The author’s reasoning depends on the assumption that newly mobilized voters will, on balance, shift electoral incentives in a way that changes policy priorities.
Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the author's argument?
In countries with compulsory voting, turnout is typically higher in national elections than in local elections.
In several jurisdictions that introduced compulsory voting with modest enforcement and extensive voter guides, elected officials’ policy agendas changed little because the new voters’ preferences closely matched those of existing voters.
A number of civic organizations have supported compulsory voting primarily because they expect it to increase overall turnout.
Some critics of compulsory voting argue that any legal penalty for nonparticipation violates individual autonomy regardless of its size.
After adopting compulsory voting, one country reduced the length of time polls remain open on election day.
Explanation
In this weaken question, the author's core logic is that compulsory voting improves policy responsiveness by mobilizing underrepresented nonvoters, shifting incentives if enforcement is modest and information accessible. Choice B weakens this by revealing that new voters' preferences match existing ones, so no policy shift occurs, challenging the assumption of representational change. This directly undercuts the expected outcome. Avoid traps like A, which notes higher national turnout but introduces irrelevant election type distinctions, not affecting responsiveness logic. C critiques on autonomy grounds, but it's a minor ethical point, not targeting the author's empirical claim. Reminder: RC strengthen/weaken questions revolve around the author's causal reasoning—here, mobilization leading to shifted priorities—so seek choices that disrupt that cause-effect, not just restate criticisms.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the claim made in the passage that properly validated risk assessment tools are unlikely to exacerbate racial disparities in pretrial detention?
Judges report that they value having more information about defendants and appreciate the transparency of risk categories.
Some tools provide only three risk categories, leading to complaints that they are too coarse to be useful in close cases.
An academic study finds that human judges' bail decisions vary widely by courtroom and time of day, even for similar cases.
In a jurisdiction that implemented a validated tool, detention rates for Black defendants increased relative to similarly situated white defendants after adoption, while overall failure-to-appear and rearrest rates remained unchanged.
Across several states, overall pretrial detention rates declined slightly in the years following adoption of risk assessment tools.
Explanation
D presents direct evidence that a validated tool's adoption coincided with worsening relative outcomes for Black defendants without public safety gains, undermining the claim about not exacerbating disparities. A and C are consistent with the claim, B is attitudinal, and E critiques granularity rather than disparate impact.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the claim made in the passage that a patchwork rewilding program will improve pollinator diversity across the city?
In a pilot across three districts, blocks randomly assigned to convert ten small patches to native plantings saw a 35% increase in the number of native bee species within one season compared with matched control blocks, after controlling for pesticide use and weather.
Several nearby suburbs plan to reduce mowing along highway shoulders to cut maintenance costs.
An entomology lab reports that a few highly mobile butterfly species can travel several miles between large parks in a single day.
A national study finds that honey production has been stable over the past decade despite urbanization.
Residents living near proposed rewilding sites express support for the aesthetic of wildflower meadows in public surveys.
Explanation
B provides randomized, controlled local evidence that small patches increase native bee species richness, directly supporting the claim about diversity gains from a patchwork. A, C, and D are tangential or address different outcomes, and E concerns highly mobile species rather than the broader pollinator community targeted.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the passage's claim that managed realignment is more cost-effective than seawalls over a 30-year horizon?
Long‑term monitoring reveals that sedimentation at many reconnected sites is substantially lower than assumed in the models, necessitating frequent dredging and levee modifications whose annual costs exceed those of maintaining modern seawalls.
Meta-analyses show that biodiversity and bird populations rebound within five years at most realigned sites.
Sea-level rise projections indicate increased wave overtopping at sites protected by existing seawalls, requiring expensive heightening in coming decades.
Insurance claims for flood damages in communities adjacent to completed realignment projects have declined steadily over the past decade.
At several realigned sites, volunteer groups contributed labor for initial planting and monitoring of marsh vegetation.
Explanation
A directly undermines the cost advantage by showing realignment would entail ongoing maintenance costs higher than seawalls. The other options either support ecological or risk-reduction benefits or increase seawall costs, none of which weakens the claim about relative cost-effectiveness.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the claim made in the passage that, in Harborview, green roofs reduce peak summer downtown temperatures more effectively than adding street trees?
Residents report feeling more comfortable on shaded sidewalks than in open plazas during peak summer afternoons.
In a randomized pilot, some buildings received green roofs while similar buildings received high-albedo roof coatings; only the green-roof blocks showed significant pedestrian-level cooling, and adjacent blocks with newly planted street trees showed no measurable change over the study period.
Street-tree survival rates in Harborview's downtown are only 55 percent after three years due to limited soil volume and vandalism.
The city simultaneously painted several roofs white in the same district that received the green roofs to meet an unrelated building-code requirement.
Green roofs cost substantially more per square foot to install than planting street trees of comparable maintenance burden.
Explanation
The randomized comparison isolates green roofs' effect and shows greater cooling than both reflective coatings and newly planted trees, directly supporting the claim. The other options concern costs, preferences, survival, or confounds without demonstrating superior temperature reduction by green roofs.