Rank 5 by frequency | 329 questions in corpus (7.3% of all questions)
A Strengthen question is the mirror image of a Weaken question. It presents an argument and asks which answer choice, if true, would most support, bolster, or increase confidence in the argument's conclusion. The answer does not need to prove the conclusion – just make it more likely. The correct answer introduces a NEW fact that makes the conclusion MORE LIKELY to follow from the premises.
Identify the answer that helps the argument the most – by providing additional evidence, ruling out an alternative explanation, supporting a key assumption, or closing a logical gap.
Your ability to identify what an argument needs to be more convincing and recognize which new information would fill its gaps or shore up its assumptions. The gap structure is identical to Weaken questions – the difference is direction.
1. Background/Context (optional): Topic setup. 2. Premises/Evidence: Facts accepted as true. 3. Conclusion: The author's claim that extends beyond the premises. 4. The Gap: Same as in Weaken – the unstated assumption(s) linking premises to conclusion. Instead of attacking this gap, the correct answer REINFORCES it.
Identical to Weaken: the conclusion overreaches via scope shifts, causal leaps, degree escalations, temporal mismatches, or unsupported comparisons.
The gap is an unstated assumption. The correct answer fills or supports this gap – it provides information making it more reasonable to believe the conclusion follows from the premises. Critical principle: the correct answer does NOT need to prove the conclusion true. It only needs to make the conclusion MORE LIKELY.
Three classic support strategies: 1. Eliminate alternative causes: Show competing explanation is not viable 2. Show mechanism: Provide evidence of HOW X causes Y 3. Confirm sample/data validity: Show study was well-designed
1. Introduces new information that supports the argument 2. Targets an unstated assumption and reinforces it, or eliminates a potential objection 3. Makes the conclusion more likely (does NOT need to guarantee it) 4. Accepted as true per "if true" clause 5. Should NOT require multiple additional assumptions to connect to the argument
| Strategy | How It Works | |———-|————-| | Eliminate alternative explanation | Shows competing cause is not viable | | Confirm sample representativeness | Validates study reflects broader population | | Provide additional evidence | New data point independently supporting conclusion | | Show mechanism/pathway | Explains HOW the claimed cause produces the effect | | Confirm comparability | Demonstrates compared items are relevantly similar | | Rule out objection | Neutralizes a potential counterargument | | Validate methodology | Shows cited study was properly controlled | | Before-and-after evidence | Same subjects before and after cause show predicted effect |
1. Irrelevant/Out of Scope: Related topic but doesn't bear on conclusion's logic 2. Opposite (Weakener): Makes conclusion LESS likely. Common direction-confusion trap 3. Premise Restater: Repeats existing evidence without adding new support 4. Addresses Wrong Gap: Supports a different aspect than the central assumption 5. Requires Excessive Assumptions: Could help but only through a long chain of inferences 6. Too Extreme: Sweeping claim beyond what's needed 7. Tangential Support: Background information that seems positive but doesn't increase conclusion's likelihood
1. Causal claims based on correlation (most common – reinforce the causal link) 2. Recommendation/prediction based on evidence 3. Generalization from sample 4. Argument by analogy 5. Elimination of alternatives
1. Multiple gaps, one correct: Only one answer addresses the right gap 2. Subtle strengthening: Correct answer provides only a MODEST boost, hard to distinguish from irrelevant options 3. Buried conclusion: Can't strengthen what you can't find 4. Correct answer seems negative: A negative-sounding fact (e.g., "participants were NOT allowed to...") that actually eliminates an alternative explanation, thereby strengthening 5. Attractive weakener placed as trap: Wrong answer that weakens catches students who lost direction
| Dimension | Strengthen | Weaken | |———–|———–|——–| | Direction | Supports the argument | Damages the argument | | Target | Same gap (unstated assumption) | Same gap (unstated assumption) | | Degree required | More likely (not proved) | Less likely (not disproved) | | Most common strategy | Eliminate alternative explanation | Provide alternative explanation |
1. Read the stem first to confirm Strengthen 2. Read the stimulus: find conclusion, premises, and gap 3. Identify the conclusion 4. Identify the premises 5. Articulate the gap: What does the author assume? What objection could be raised? What alternative exists? 6. Prephrase broadly: For causal arguments, think "eliminate alternatives" or "confirm mechanism." For generalizations, think "validate sample." For comparisons, think "confirm similarity." 7. Evaluate each answer: Accept as true. "Does this make the conclusion more likely?" 8. Eliminate wrong answers: irrelevant > weakeners > premise restaters 9. Compare remaining: Pick the most direct support with fewest additional assumptions 10. Double-check direction: Verify you're strengthening, not weakening
Source: PT48, Section 1, Question 3
Stimulus: A study claims to prove people have a "sixth sense" for detecting when they're being watched, based on subjects correctly guessing 60% of the time whether they were being watched through a window.
Source: PT48, Section 1, Question 7
Stimulus: Enthusiasm for calculators in math learning is misplaced. Principles are better remembered when grounded in habits from painstaking application. Since calculators make calculation easier, restricting their use is reasonable.
Source: PT59, Section 2, Question 1
Stimulus: A researcher found that all 35 patients with atypical Parkinson's regularly ate soursop, custard apple, and pomme cannelle, versus only 10 of 65 healthy adults. She concluded the fruits cause atypical Parkinson's.