This document (how-to-weaken-arguments.pdf) was purchased by: Alex Short (alexandershort4@gmail.

com) (5FV04502FX6354637)

HOW TO WEAKEN ARGUMENTS.

TO WEAKEN ANY ARGUMENT, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND ONE THING.

This thing is not tangible nor obvious. Its instead abstract and subtle which means its hard to
understand. Here it is: You have to take away the support. What support? The support that the
premises give to the conclusion. Please read that again. It may sound very obvious, but youd be
surprised at how often you will fall prey because you didnt heed this warning. Its only nature since our
instinct when arguing is to deny our opponents premises. He asserts that there are bugs in the kitchen
and therefore an exterminator visit is in order. You deny his premise by asserting that there are no bugs
in the kitchen. But what would be the point of asking a question like this? All you did was to say no.
Much more interesting is it to concede to your opponent her premises and then try to argue that
despite your concession, her conclusion still doesnt follow from her premises. Thats what Weaken
(weakening) questions test you on. It most certainly does not say that you are to contradict, attack or
weaken a premise nor does it ask you to contradict, attack or weaken the conclusion. It says you are to
deprive the support that the premises give to the conclusion, as if with magic. Let me illustrate. Did
you watch Dragon Ball Z growing up? Remember Gokus Kamehameha?

This document (how-to-weaken-arguments.pdf) was purchased by: Alex Short (alexandershort4@gmail.com) (5FV04502FX6354637)

Now pretend that little Goku is the premise and that car is the conclusion. The Kamehameha beam (i.e.,
the blue beam) is the support. The thicker the beam, the stronger the support and therefore, the
stronger the argument. Think about it like that. Accordingly, when you are asked to weaken an
argument, you are asked to thin out the beam. But you cant touch Goku, nor can you touch the car.
Often, you have to fight your urge to attack the premise or attack the conclusion. You have to find
something that thins out the Kamehameha beam. You have to find an answer choice that strips the
existing premises of its supportive power. Dont confuse that with attacking the premises. You are not
attacking the premises. You are demonstrating, with the correct answer choice, that despite the
premises being true, it add nothing to the likelihood that the conclusion is also true.

SOME SAMPLE QUESTION STEMS

1. Which one of the following, if true, is the logically strongest counter that Albert can make to
Erins argument?
2. Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument?
3. Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?
4. Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion drawn in the
argument above?
5. Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument in the newspaper article?

LETS REVIEW
Weakening questions ask you to weaken the argument. That means to weaken the relationship
between the premises and conclusion. That relationship is the support relationship. That means you
are to make the premises less supportive of the conclusion.