2 kinds of strengthener/weakener

vietmoi999 wrote:most person,experts know that there are 2 ways in which strengtherner/weakerer work.

- validate/invalidate an assumption. I can see many questions in og books for this kind

- suport/weaken the conclusion. I do not see this type. anyone know the questions in og books or from other sources , which belong to this type, please, post for me.

I have not understood that a strengthener can increase belief in the conclusion without validating an assumption.

please, give me an example.

Dear vietmoi999,
I'm happy to respond.

I have never been a fan at all of the "two kinds of strengthener/weakener" theory. I don't think that's a very helpful or reliable guide to the way GMAT CR actually works.

Yes, the assumption is very important, and bolstering or attacking the assumption is a good way to strength or weaken an argument. That's undoubtedly true.

Keep in mind that the premise is a huge part of any argument --- one could provide further support for a premise, or call into question a premise, and those would strengthen or weaken the argument.

Often, though, the GMAT excels at creating questions that are not formulaic --- questions in which some new creative perspective, unique to the particulars of the situation under consideration, shifts the entire logic of the argument. If you try to go through GMAT CR with a formula or recipe, the GMAT will brutally punish you. You have to engage the logical push & pull unique in each situation.

See these two posts:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-cr-st ... -argument/
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/how-to-wea ... reasoning/

Does all this make sense?
Mike

vietmoi999 wrote:what I said is general logic. I do not find a rule.

Normally, for strenthen/weaken question, we try to find an assumption before going to answer choice. this is classic approach advised by many experts, and I see that this approach is effective.

now, you said some evidence which cast doubt on evidence can be a weakener. I do not understand. evidence is alway right? please give me an example of this kind of weakener.

what is the process of thinking for solving the strengthen/weaken question? there is only one process : prethink an assumption before going to answer choice. is that right?

I am going to see the post you tell me. thank you Mangoosh expert

It's true that, as a general rule, finding the assumption of an argument can be helpful, either as for a strengthen or weaken question. It never hurts to find the assumption, although that's not necessarily a magic bullet that works for all questions.

As far as evidence: when we are analyzing an argument on the GMAT CR, the overall convention is that we cannot question the evidence in our role of solving the questions. Don't confuse the GMAT with Life. In the real world, there's tons of bad evidence, and it can happen, say in a GMAT Dialogue Structure question, that one party will present evidence and another party will question that evidence. Even if a weakener doesn't directly question the evidence, it may present additional evidence that supports a different conclusion. Similarly, a strengthen may add further evidence or a different kind of evidence.

A much bigger problem is --- the classification schemes for different kinds of weakeners or strengtheners have, at best, limited utility in actually solving GMAT CR questions. In retrospect, it's always possible to take almost any strengthener or weakener and frame it in way that the correct answer deals with an assumption or additional evidence or whatever scheme one likes. This after-the-fact categorization is not necessarily helpful at all in solving questions you are seeing for the first time.

What's truly remarkable about the GMAT CR --- the GMAT excels at creating arguments that explore what is idiosyncratically unique about a particular situation. Thus, a GMAT strengthener or weakener is, in some ways, unique to the twists and turns of the individual situation. Having a pre-formulated scheme of classification is not nearly as helpful as flexible critical thinking in context.

Also, BTW, the word "Magoosh" contains no "n".

Mike