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
