Weaken

Question 1

HOW TO APPROACH EVERY CR PASSAGE

Answer 1

For each sentence;

1. Read words carefully & take note of modifiers, indicators, language.
2. Summarize the main gist
   “What is the simple story here?”
3. Determine scope. Ask:
   “What are they saying vs not saying?”
4. Opinion vs fact
   “Is this an Opinion or fact?”
5. Determine the purpose. Ask:
   “Why is the author telling me this?” (eg. to illustrate an example, to provide background context)
6. Make the inferencial connection with previous sentences: Ask:
   “How does this info connect to the previous sentence?” “What inference can I draw from combining the previous sentences with this?”
7. Determine the logical flow; Ask:
   “Does this support the previous sentence or does the previous sentence support this?”
8. Determine the main point/main conclusion and note the scope of what it actually says.
   “What is the main point/conclusion here & what is the scope of elements in this?”

For Each passage

9. Identify presence/absence or an argument
   “Is there a conclusion?”
10. If no conclusion , identify the heart of the passage
    `
    A set of facts → inference/must be true/find the conclusion
    Paradox → resolve the paradox
    `
11. If yes conclusion, Map the logical link in a flow chart: [Premise → assumption → logical gap → Conclusion]
    * Identify the premise that directly supports the conclusion & its scope
    * Determine the Core Assumption:
    `
    “What new elements are there”
    “How did the author make this jump from premise to conclusion”
    “What must I assume to me true for me to believe this conclusion”
    `
    * If the assumption is not so clear, use the Falsification condition. Ask:
    “Under What circumstances , given the [Facts] in the argument, will the [conclusion] not hold”
    * Identify the logical gap
    “Am i fully convinced by this argument i.e is the argument weak or strong?” “What extra evidence is missing here that i need to be fully convinced?”

For each question stem:

13. Carefully read and identify the question stem.
    “What is this question stem asking of me?”
14. After reading the question stem, take a moment to mentally recap details you just gathered and define what you are looking for
15. Rephrase the question into a yes/No format will enable you to eliminate and choose the right answer with precision.
16. Always read each of the five answer choices completely. Ask yourself…
    `
    “What is this option simply saying”
    “Does it answer …rephrased question..?”
    `
17. Eliminate any answer choice that doesn’t answer your question

Question 2

Most important strategy TO MAINTAIN ACCURACY in weaken QUESTIONS

Answer 2

In order to maximize your
chances of success you must identify, isolate, and assess the premises
and the conclusion of the argument.

Only by understanding the structure of the argument can you gain the perspective necessary to attack the author’s position.

Ensure you have properly mapped out the Conclusion first

MAKE SURE YOU MAKE LOGICAL CONNECTIONS AND CONNECT ALL FACTS TO THE CONCLUSION USING DIAGRAMING

Always prethink the assumptions and determine the one that is most critical to the conclusion.

WHAT YOU WANT TO WEAKEN IS THE LOGICAL LINK (& core Assumption) TO THE CONCLUSION. if an answer choice is talking about something not in the logical chain-assumption-conclusion you mapped out, its irrelevant

Question 3

To weaken a conditional conclusion ………

Answer 3

attack the necessary condition by showing that the necessary condition does not need to occur in order for the sufficient condition to occur.

This can be achieved by presenting a counterexample or by presenting
information that shows that the sufficient condition can occur without the necessary condition.

When you have conditional reasoning in the stimulus and a Weaken question, immediately look for an answer that attacks the necessary condition.

Question 4

T/F?

Weaken is the most common type of CR question

Answer 4

True

Question 5

T/F?

A correct answer that weakens argument can bring in new information

Answer 5

TRUE

Remember: weaken is part of the “hurt” family where each option choice is taken as fact, and is meant to highlight a gap in the logic of the passage.

The point is to determine - does this new info affect the argument logically?

Question 6

T/F?

Correct answer to weaken the argument has to dispove the conclusion

Answer 6

FALSE

Most correct answers will not advertly “disprove” the argument, instead they will “cast doub or “decrease the pursuessiveness” of the argument

Question 7

T/F?

A correct “weaken” answer can attack premise

Answer 7

False

Any answer that attacks the premise can NEVER be correct. Premise is considered as FACT.

Question 8

The Correct answer to a weaken question …

Answer 8

1. Attacks the Assumption, a glue that logically links the premise to the conclusion, even though the premise is true
2. May not explitly say the assumption is false. Intead, it will “subtly” cast reasonable doubt on the validity of the assumption (logical link) → casting doubt on the conclusion/argment no matter how small.

the correct answer may be subtle but weakens

Question 9

What are the “weaken” indicators in question stem?

Answer 9

Which of the following , if true…. (indicates hurt/help), followed by certain key words;

weaken
attack
undermine
refute
argue against
call into question
cast doubt
challenge
damage
counter
evidence against
indicates a vunerability

Question 10

7 Types of “Correct answers” to “weaken” questions

Answer 10

1. Exposes a false dichotomy by offering a 3rd alternative
2. Calls into question a cause-effect conclusion
3. Shows that a generalization that supports an argument is faulty
4. Shows that a comparison used to support the conclusion is faulty
5. Shows that, in arriving at a conclusion, the author confused numbers and percentages.
6. Brings up new info that suggest that a plan will not work, when the conclusion says it will.
7. Indicates that a plan, which the argument concludes will not work, will actually work.

Question 11

Situation:

An argument incorrectly limits the number of possible conclusions/alternatives to 2.
It implies that just because one outcome is impossible, the other must be true.

How can this argument be weakened?

Answer 11

We weaken → By showing that there is an alternative posibility/explanation that the author has failed to consider

Assumption - There is no alternative path to an outcome occuring

Weakener- There is an alternative path to the outcome occuring

Question 12

Situation:

An argument presents facts that events A and B occured silmutenously/sequentialy or that there is a correlation between them. It concludes that A must have caused B.

How can this argument be weakened?

Answer 12

We weaken → By providing alternative explanations for the events by bringing new info that imply;

1. A causal relationship exists but its the reverse ie B →A
2. No causal relationship exist between A & B, instead a 3rd factor Z → A & B
3. The correlation is just a mere coincidence, and no causal relationship exists.

Assumption - the cause-effect claim is correct and there is no alternate explanation for the observed events.

Weakener- There is an alternative explanation for the observed events, and the claim may be incorrect

Question 13

Situation:

An argument presents facts that some members (at least one) of a group has certain characteristics , and implies that therefore all members of the group must have the same characteristic as well.

How can this argument be weakened?

Answer 13

We weaken →
* By providing info that implies that because some members of a group have a characteristic does not mean that all members of that group have that characteristic.
* By rendering the sample as “bi not representative of the overall population. Basicly it implies that the author is making faulty generalizations

Assumption - the small sample provides solid support for the conclusion on the overall population/group

Weakener- the sample is not representative of the overall population, and it is not the case in all members of a group/population/scenario.

Question 14

Situation:

An argument makes a comparison about 2 things that are fundamentally different . It uses this comparison to support its conclusion.

How can this argument be weakened?

Answer 14

We weaken → By indicating that items in the comparison are different in key ways, the comparison may be faulty enough to not support the the conclusion.

Hint: when an argument is based on a comparison, the correct answer choice will most likely be about the comparison

Assumption - the comparison is logically correct and provides solid support for the conclusion

Weakener- the items being compared are different in key ways, so the comparison may be logically incorrect and not a solid support for the argument.

Question 15

Situation:

An argument provides statistical data (e.g. numbers and percentages) and makes a conclusion based on this.

How can this argument be weakened?

Answer 15

We weaken → by implying that data was not properly analyzed or not sufficient to support the conclusion.

if % are used, it will suggest that the % are misleading.

Assumption - the data is properly analyzed, and provides solid support for the argument.

Weakener- the data is misleading and not what it seems, and may not be enough support for the conclusion.

Question 16

Situation:

An argument presents a plan/course of action that should generate a desired/expected result

How can this argument be weakened?

Answer 16

We weaken → By bringing info that indicates that the plan may not work, or that taking the course of action will not generate the desired result.

The correct answers fall into the following categories;

1. The plan addresses one factor in the situation, the ans indicates there is another factor that the plan does not address
2. The ans indicates that the method the plan wants to use to solve a problem will make the problem worse in another way
3. if the argument concludes that a plan will work because a similar plan has worked before, the ans will show that the plan will not work because the current situation is different form the situation existing when the plan was prev used
4. The ans shows that the logic underlying the expectation that the plan will work misses a key aspect of how the situation works.

Assumption - the plan will work, and there is no malicious/unsuspected variable that will make the plan not to work.

Weakener- the plan will not work,

Question 17

Situation:

An argument says a plan will not work, or does not make sense

How can this argument be weakened?

Answer 17

We weaken → by providing new info that indicates that the plan will work. By showing an alternative path to success of the plan even with the facts in the argument suggesting otherwise.

Assumption - There is no alternative path to success, there is no way the plan wil work

Weakener- theres an alternate path (variable) the author did not consider that can actually make the plan work.

Question 18

When you are left with 2 choices in a “weaken” question….

Answer 18

look at your logical link (assumption) to the conclusion.
The option that most directly hurts the link ( assumption), is the best option.

Question 19

T/F?

A “better plan” or “alternative plan” always weakens an argument about plans.

Answer 19

FALSE

Its a TRAP answer and is mostly INCORRECT.

A better plan will never weaken an argument unless the assumption is based on the logic that “there is no better/alternative plan” instead of the usuall “there is no other factor that will make the plan not to work”.

Question 20

Incorrect “weaken” answer choices

Answer 20

1. Opposite answers - strengthen instead of weaken
2. Psaudo-weakners - be very suspicous of “some” , “most” , “many” in an ans choice. Just because some dont ≠ most dont. Everyone need not follow a pattern inorder to conclude that there is an overall tendency
3. Choices that weaken the support to a similar conclusion but in actuality the wrong conclusion
4. out of scope answers not relevant to the argument.
5. Answers that attack premises

Question 21

How to answer “Except” & “Not” weaken questons

Answer 21

4 incorrect answers - weaken
1 correct answer - not weaken

weaken - ❌
Not weaken - ✅

Question 22

When you have conditional reasoning in the stimulus and a Weaken question stem …

Answer 22

immediately look for an answer that attacks the necessary condition by showing that the necessary condition does not need to occur in order for the sufficient condition to occur.

TIP: in your head say “the answer choice will tell me that event A does not necerssarily require B to exit , to occur .

Question 23

How will you deal with eliminating between 2 close answer choices in “weaken” questions?

Answer 23

1.Understand the main Conclusion and restate it

2.Identify the core assumption : there may be more than 1. Identify the most critical to the conclusion. Always think about the assumptions made

3.Compare the scope of the answer choices:
Ask yourself - does this answer address the heart of the conclusion?
Always favor the option that addresses the core logical linkor has a stronger causal connection to the conclusion.

4.Eliminate the Lesser Weakener Using “But Can the Plan Still Work?” the one that makes me doubt that the plan can work.
Test Each Option Against the Plan - Ask, “Can the plan still work if this is true?”
The answer that completely undermines the plan is the stronger weakener.

5.Use Extreme Language or Scope to Refine Your Choice:
Language - Look for clues in the language. Stronger, more direct language usually points to the better weakener. Weaker language (e.g., “likely,” “may,” or “some”) - “propability” tends to dilute the weakening impact of an answer. Strong, decisive phrasing (e.g., “most,” “for the most part,” or “completely”) is often more impactful in weaken questions.
Scope - Strong weakeners attack the conclusion head-on, while weaker choices typically address tangential issues or less critical assumptions.

Question 24

T/F?

You can maintain accuracy in weaken by just knowing the framework of common question types. You dont need to know the unique Assumption for each question

Answer 24

FALSE!!

You can never have good accuracy in weaken if you dont identify with laser sharpness - the core Assumption used in the question to arrive at the conclusion.

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT DETERMINANT OF WHETHER YOU GET IT RIGHT OR NOT.

Weaken answer choices always hurt the CORE ASSUMPTION.

Question 25

A group of children of various ages was read stories in which people caused harm, some of those people doing so intentionally, and some accidentally. When asked about appropriate punishments for those who had caused harm, the younger children, unlike the older ones, assigned punishments that did not vary according to whether the harm was done intentionally or accidentally. Younger children, then, do not regard people's intentions as relevant to punishment. | T/F? ## Footnote The core assumption here is - "there is no alternative reason for the xplained events"

Answer 25

**False** ## Footnote While it is true that he must have also assumed that there is no alt reason for the explained event, this is not the core unique assumption for this passage. Conclusion → Younger children do not regard intentions as relevant to punishment. ↑↑ Assumption→ the younger children recognised intentionality. ↑↑ Supporting Premise → punishments given were same (a.k.a did not vary) , whether intentonal/accident The core assumption must be true, inorder for the conclusion to be valid. if the core assumption is not true, the conclusion is invalid. So its better to say "what answer choice suggests that they did not know interntionality" than to say " what answ choice gives me an alternate reason" This strategy just makes you rule out answer incorrect answer choices with better precision.

Question 26

A restaurant claims “our new vegan menu failed, so people hate vegan food,” | Which of the options below is the correct weakner ## Footnote 1. Other restaurants’ vegan menus succeeded in the same period the restaurant launches their vegan menu. 2. Customers in an survey indicated that they were not aware of the new menu.

Answer 26

**GMAT Rule**: **Answers that rely on external comparisons** are often **traps** ***UNLESS*** they **directly address** the argument’s **logic**. ## Footnote Example: If a restaurant claims “our new vegan menu failed, so people hate vegan food,” an answer like “other restaurants’ vegan menus succeeded” weakly challenges the conclusion. A stronger answer would address why **this restaurant’s** vegan menu failed (e.g., poor marketing, high prices).

Question 27

# T/F In weaken/strengthen questions, thinking of just 1 hidden assumption is enough

Answer 27

**False!** ## Footnote 1. Always identify **2-3 **assumptions (must be tailored not vague) 2. Out of the 3, **determine which one is most critical** for the argument to remain valid (use negation test) 3. Use **context clues **to identify the core assumption

Question 28

# The biggest game changer! Best way to reframe a weaken question

Answer 28

I am looking for an answer that will **cast doubt** or **make me reconsider** the [assumption], hence the [conclusion]. ## Footnote if you use...that will tell me the assumption/conclusion is false....it might make you miss contenders that are 1% weakners esp in hard questions.

Question 29

# what is the core assumption, & how will you weaken the scientist claim? Scientist: Cross-sections of stalactites - calcite formations deposited on cave ceilings by seeping water - can reveal annual variations in rainfall in particular areas over hundreds and thousands of years. We often found that when - according to these cross-sections - drought occurred in a particular area, it coincided with the collapse of an ancient society in that area. I hypothesize that drought reduced agricultural productivity in these areas, thereby leaving these societies without the resources needed to handle internal stresses and external threats.

Answer 29

**The core assumption** : lack of agricultural resources caused the collapse and no other cause. **Weakener**: anything that brings new info to suggest that it was not lack of agricultural recources that caused the collapse but something else. ## Footnote So when a cause and effect claim is made, **pay attention to the conclusion for what the author assumes is the Direct vs Indirect Cause. The weakener/stregthner will affect the direct cause-effect link** If you read the argument carefully and see its conclusion you will see :- (1) Society's downfall is correlated to the lack of agricultural resources ; (2) Draught is mentioned just as a factor that generally brings the above mentioned lack of resources. (3) Stalactites is a red herring to confuse test taker and make him read extraneous useless information.