In-Depth: Strengthen and Weaken Arguments

CLAT Application & Relevance

Importance: VERY HIGH. Strengthen and Weaken questions are staples of CLAT Logical Reasoning. They directly test your ability to evaluate an argument's robustness by identifying new information that impacts its validity. This skill is critical for legal reasoning, where you constantly assess the strength of cases, precedents, or legislative proposals by considering new facts or counter-arguments.

How it's tested: Questions like "Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen/weaken the argument?", "Which of the following statements provides the strongest support/most undermines the conclusion?"

Section 1: Core Concepts & Strategies

These questions require you to find an answer choice that, if true, makes the argument's conclusion either more or less likely to be true. The key is to understand the argument's structure (premises and conclusion) and its underlying assumptions.

Strategies for Strengthening an Argument:

To strengthen an argument, look for an option that:

1. Supports an Assumption: Provides evidence that a key unstated assumption is true. This is the most common way.
2. Provides New Evidence: Adds a new premise that directly supports the conclusion.
3. Eliminates Alternative Explanations/Causes: If the argument states X caused Y, a strengthener might eliminate other possible causes for Y.
4. Confirms Representativeness: If the argument generalizes from a sample, a strengthener confirms the sample is representative.
5. Validates Data/Source: If the argument relies on data or an expert opinion, a strengthener might confirm the reliability of that data/source.

Strategies for Weakening an Argument:

To weaken an argument, look for an option that:

1. Attacks an Assumption: Provides evidence that a key unstated assumption is false. This is the most common way.
2. Provides an Alternative Explanation/Cause: Suggests another plausible reason for the phenomenon cited in the conclusion, other than the one given in the argument.
3. Challenges Premises/Data: Shows that a premise is false, unreliable, or irrelevant.
4. Undermines Representativeness: If generalizing from a sample, shows the sample is NOT representative.
5. Introduces a Counter-Example: Provides an instance where the premise is true but the conclusion is false.

Key Considerations for Both Types:

Focus on the Causal Link: Many CR arguments imply a causal relationship. Strengtheners confirm, weakeners undermine that link.
Degrees of Impact: The question usually asks for "most" strengthen/weaken. Choose the option that has the biggest logical impact on the conclusion.
Assume the Options are True: For these questions, you must assume that the information given in the answer choices is true, even if it seems unlikely in the real world.

Section 2: Solved CLAT-Style Examples

Example 1: Strengthening an Argument (Addressing an Assumption)

Passage: "A recent study found that students who regularly attend legal aid clinics during their law school years score significantly higher on the practical skills section of the bar exam. Therefore, law schools should make legal aid clinic attendance mandatory for all students to better prepare them for the practical aspects of law."

Question: "Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?"

The study surveyed a diverse range of law schools across different regions.
Students who attend legal aid clinics are generally more motivated and disciplined.
The practical skills section of the bar exam accurately reflects real-world legal challenges.
Voluntary attendance at legal aid clinics has been decreasing over the past few years.
Law schools face increasing pressure to improve their graduates' practical readiness.

Detailed Solution:
1. Identify Argument: Premise: Clinic attendees score higher on practical skills section. Conclusion: Mandatory attendance should be implemented to better prepare students practically. Assumption: The higher scores are *due to* the clinic attendance, and not some other factor related to those students (e.g., they are already better students).
2. Evaluate Options:
a) Supports the study's generalizability, but doesn't directly strengthen the causal link between clinics and skills.
b) If clinic attendees are *already* more motivated, then it's their motivation (an alternative cause), not necessarily the clinic attendance itself, that leads to higher scores. This would **weaken** the argument.
c) Correct. The argument links clinic attendance to "better prepar[ation] for the practical aspects of law" based on "practical skills section of the bar exam." If the exam *doesn't* accurately reflect practical challenges, then scoring high on it doesn't mean better practical preparation. This option strengthens the bridge between the exam score and actual practical preparation. This is a crucial assumption being validated.
d) Irrelevant to whether mandatory attendance would be effective for preparation.
e) Provides context for the recommendation but doesn't strengthen the causal link.
Answer: Option (c).

Example 2: Weakening an Argument (Introducing Alternative Cause)

Passage: "The city government recently launched a 'Community Engagement' program to foster better relations between the police and local residents. Since the program's inception six months ago, public complaints against police misconduct have dropped by 25%. This reduction proves that the Community Engagement program is successful in improving police-community relations."

Question: "Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion drawn above?"

The Community Engagement program received significant media coverage.
Over the past six months, a major awareness campaign about citizens' rights was also launched by a local NGO.
A similar program in a neighboring city did not show any significant reduction in complaints.
Police misconduct complaints are notoriously underreported by citizens.
The city's overall crime rate also decreased during the same period.

Detailed Solution:
1. Identify Argument: Premise: Community Engagement program launched. Complaints dropped by 25%. Conclusion: Program is successful in improving relations. Assumption: The program *caused* the drop in complaints, and the drop in complaints *means* improved relations.
2. Evaluate Options for Weakening:
a) Might strengthen the program's visibility, but not its direct effect.
b) Correct. If another significant campaign was launched concurrently, it provides a strong **alternative explanation** for the drop in complaints. It undermines the argument that the *Community Engagement program* alone is responsible.
c) While interesting, a failure elsewhere doesn't necessarily mean this program is ineffective (different contexts, different implementations). Not the strongest weakness.
d) This attacks the reliability of the premise itself (that complaints *accurately* reflect misconduct). If complaints are underreported, a drop might mean people are less likely to report, not that relations improved. This is also a strong weaken. However, (b) provides an *alternative cause for the observed effect*, which is a classic weaken strategy. In CLAT, if given both, (b) often points to a direct alternative action, while (d) questions the data itself. (b) is usually considered a stronger attack on the causal link of the stated program.
e) A decrease in crime rate doesn't necessarily imply improved relations, nor does it directly offer an alternative for the drop in *complaints*.
Answer: Option (b).