Master Strengthen/Weaken Arguments
Core CR skill for CAT 2025. Learn systematic argument analysis, evidence evaluation, and trap identification. Build speed and accuracy with proven methods.
📚 CR Strengthen/Weaken Flashcards
Master argument analysis with systematic practice
Loading…
Loading…
🎯 Test Your CR Strengthen/Weaken Skills
5 CAT-style questions with detailed explanations
🎯✨ Test Complete!
Online retailers offering free returns have higher customer satisfaction ratings than those charging return fees. Therefore, eliminating return fees will increase customer satisfaction for any online retailer.
Which option most strengthens this argument?
✓ Correct! Option B is the answer.
Why B is correct: The argument claims eliminating return fees will increase satisfaction. Option B provides direct evidence that this actually happened when retailers made this change, showing the proposed cause-effect relationship works in practice. This confirms the core assumption that free returns cause higher satisfaction.
Option A – Side Point Trap: Second most important factor doesn’t tell us whether eliminating fees will increase satisfaction. Importance ranking doesn’t establish causation.
Option C – Irrelevant Correlation: Information about which retailers offer free returns doesn’t affect whether the policy increases satisfaction.
Option D – Off-Topic Scope: Shipping costs are separate from return fees and don’t affect the premise-conclusion link.
Patients who meditate daily report 30% lower stress levels than non-meditators. This demonstrates that meditation causes stress reduction.
Which option most weakens this argument?
✓ Correct! Option A is the answer.
Why A is correct: Option A reverses the causal direction, suggesting low stress causes meditation adoption rather than meditation causing low stress. This alternative explanation attacks the core causal assumption, showing correlation might not indicate the claimed causation direction.
Option B – Background Only: Historical information about meditation doesn’t affect whether it causes stress reduction in modern practitioners.
Option C – Degree Not Direction: That some techniques work better doesn’t weaken the claim that meditation in general causes stress reduction.
Option D – Practical Concern Not Logical: Time requirements don’t affect whether meditation causes stress reduction when practiced.
City A implemented a congestion charge for downtown driving and saw traffic decrease by 25%. City B should implement the same policy to reduce its traffic congestion.
Which option most strengthens this recommendation?
✓ Correct! Option A is the answer.
Why A is correct: The argument assumes City B is similar enough to City A that the same policy will work. Option A confirms this critical assumption by showing relevant similarities exist. Without similar conditions, City A’s success doesn’t predict City B’s success.
Option B – Historical Background: Discussion by planners doesn’t affect whether the policy will work in City B.
Option C – Irrelevant Detail: Initial opposition in City A doesn’t tell us whether the policy will reduce traffic in City B.
Option D – Motivation Not Mechanics: High costs explain why reducing congestion is desirable but don’t strengthen the claim that this specific policy will work.
Students using AI writing assistants scored 15% higher on essays than students without such tools. Schools should therefore encourage AI assistant use to improve writing quality.
Which option most weakens this recommendation?
✓ Correct! Option A is the answer.
Why A is correct: The argument assumes AI improves writing quality. Option A shows the improvement is artificial—students don’t actually develop better writing skills, they just produce better output with AI help. This attacks the assumption that the score improvement represents genuine quality enhancement worth encouraging.
Option B – Availability Information: Whether tools are free or paid doesn’t affect whether using them improves writing quality.
Option C – Teacher Burden: More grading time is a practical concern but doesn’t weaken the claim that AI improves writing quality.
Option D – Variation Within Category: Different specializations don’t weaken the general claim that AI assistants improve scores.
Companies that switched to four-day workweeks reported 20% higher productivity per hour worked. This proves that shorter workweeks increase worker efficiency.
Which option most strengthens this argument?
✓ Correct! Option D is the answer.
Why D is correct: Option D rules out the alternative explanation that productivity increased due to external factors affecting all companies. By showing comparison companies without four-day weeks didn’t improve, this strengthens the causal link between the shorter week and higher productivity.
Option A – Narrow Applicability: Sector specificity suggests limited generalizability but doesn’t strengthen the causal claim within the studied context.
Option B – Mechanism Not Proof: Better satisfaction explains why productivity might increase but doesn’t rule out alternative causes or confirm the causal link.
Option C – Misdirection: Constant output with higher per-hour productivity just means fewer hours were worked—this restates the premise without adding new support.
Bonus Challenge: This is a hybrid question. Try the weaken version: Which option most weakens the argument? Answer: Option C in a different context—if workers worked unofficial extra hours from home during their “off” day, the “four-day” week wasn’t actually shorter, undermining the evidence base.
💡 How to Master CR Strengthen/Weaken Questions
Systematic approaches to analyze arguments and evaluate evidence impact
The 5-Step Method for Every Question
Master this systematic approach and strengthen/weaken questions become mechanical. Follow these steps in order:
- Frame the Argument: Mark the conclusion, list premises, identify the assumption linking them
- Tag Argument Type: Causal (X→Y), plan/proposal, comparison (X vs Y), or survey-based
- Pre-Think: Predict what would help or hurt before reading options—this saves 40 seconds
- Test Options for Impact: Ask: Does this change how likely the conclusion is?
- Pick the Best Hit: Choose the option targeting the main assumption, not side details
Pre-thinking takes 20 seconds but saves 40 seconds in option evaluation. Frame argument (15s) → Tag type (10s) → Pre-think (15s) → Test options (30s) → Select (10s) = 80 seconds average per question.
What Actually Strengthens Arguments
Strengthen options don’t need to prove the conclusion—they only need to make it more probable. Look for these patterns:
Pattern 1: Support the Assumption
Explicitly state what the argument assumed but didn’t prove. If the argument assumes no alternatives, the option says “researchers controlled for alternative factors.”
Pattern 2: Rule Out Alternatives
For causal and plan arguments: If policy X reduced crime, showing cities without X saw no reduction rules out external factors causing the improvement.
Pattern 3: Show Data is Reliable
For survey arguments: Show the sample was random, large, and representative. Confirm data collection methods were sound and unbiased.
Pattern 4: Show Plan Achieves Goal
Evidence that the plan works in similar contexts and side effects are manageable. Demonstrate the mechanism connecting action to outcome.
Before marking a strengthen option, ask: Does it support the assumption, confirm key evidence, or remove a big objection? If yes to any, it’s a strong candidate.
What Actually Weakens Arguments
Weaken options don’t need to destroy the conclusion—they only need to make it less probable. Look for these patterns:
Pattern 1: Introduce Counter-Evidence
Data contradicting the conclusion or showing evidence is flawed. Challenge the reliability or representativeness of cited studies.
Pattern 2: Provide Alternative Causes
Most powerful for causal arguments. If X caused Y, showing Z could have caused Y creates doubt. Also consider reversed causation: maybe Y causes X, not X causes Y.
Pattern 3: Show Important Differences
For comparisons, reveal X and Y weren’t tested in similar conditions. For plan recommendations, show key differences between contexts.
Pattern 4: Show Plan Won’t Work
Evidence the plan failed elsewhere or has serious drawbacks that undermine the proposed benefit.
You don’t need to disprove the conclusion. Just make it less likely. Think probability shifts, not absolute proof. Before marking a weaken option, ask: Does it attack the assumption, undermine evidence, or suggest a strong alternative cause?
Spotting Irrelevant Options and Traps
Most wrong answers are irrelevant—they discuss the topic but don’t affect the logical connection. Train yourself to spot these traps:
- On Topic But Off Logic: Discusses the subject but doesn’t affect premise-conclusion link
- Restates Premise: Repeats what argument already said, adds no new information
- Attacks Wrong Claim: Critiques something the argument never claimed
- Affects Side Points: Impacts minor detail rather than core assumption
- Personal Opinion: Sounds persuasive to you but doesn’t logically affect the argument
- Scope Mismatch: Argument about “most cases,” option about “rare instances”
Relevance Test (Critical Tool)
If hiding the option doesn’t change your confidence in the conclusion, it’s irrelevant. Apply this test to every option before eliminating.
Correct answers depend on the argument’s logic, not your opinion. The most common error is choosing options you find persuasive rather than options that logically affect the stated argument. Stay objective—evaluate impact on the specific claim, not general believability.
From Theory to Practice: Systematic CR Mastery
You’ve practiced the flashcards. You’ve tested yourself. Now understand why the methods work—and how to apply them to any CAT CR question you’ll encounter.
Understanding Strengthen/Weaken Arguments in CAT CR
Strengthen and weaken questions test your ability to see how premises connect to conclusions and how new information affects that link. Your job is picking the option that most clearly makes the conclusion more or less likely, not what you personally agree with.
These questions appear in CAT’s Verbal Ability section as part of critical reasoning. They differ from RC strengthen/weaken questions because you’re analyzing standalone arguments, not extracting claims from longer passages. The argument is given complete in 3-4 sentences, and you must evaluate how each option impacts its logical strength.
Most test-takers fail by treating these as opinion questions. They pick options they find persuasive rather than options that logically affect the argument’s validity. CAT exploits this by including options that discuss the topic but don’t touch the premise-conclusion link.
Master the systematic approach and these questions become mechanical. Identify the conclusion, spot the assumption, predict what would help or hurt, then match options to your prediction.
Pause & Reflect
Before reading further: Can you distinguish between an argument’s conclusion and its premises in under 10 seconds?
If you struggled with this, you’re likely missing the foundation. The conclusion is what the argument claims is true. The premises are the evidence offered to support it.
This is the #1 skill for strengthen/weaken questions. Without correctly identifying what’s being argued, you can’t evaluate what affects it.
Look for conclusion indicators: “therefore,” “thus,” “so,” “proves that,” “demonstrates that.” Premises use: “because,” “since,” “given that,” “evidence shows.”
The 5-Step Method for Every Question
Step 1: Frame the Argument
Find the conclusion, list premises, identify the assumption. The assumption is the unstated link making the jump from evidence to conclusion valid.
Step 2: Tag Argument Type
Causal (X causes Y), plan/proposal, comparison (X vs Y), or survey-based. Type determines what strengthen/weaken options should target.
Step 3: Pre-Think
Predict what would help or hurt before reading options. Strengthen: what plugs the gap? Weaken: what creates doubt?
Critical Habit: Pre-thinking takes 20 seconds but saves 40 seconds in option evaluation.
Step 4: Test Options for Impact
Ask: Does this change how likely the conclusion is? If yes, it strengthens or weakens. If no, it’s irrelevant.
Step 5: Pick the Best Hit
Choose the option targeting the main assumption, not side details.
Test Your Understanding
Quick check: If an argument says “Sales increased after we launched ads, so ads caused the increase,” what’s the hidden assumption?
Hidden assumption: Nothing else caused the sales increase. No other factors changed during the same period that could explain the results.
This is a causal argument, and causal arguments always assume no alternative causes exist. Strengthen by confirming this; weaken by introducing alternative explanations.
For causal arguments, assume “only X could cause Y” until proven otherwise. Weaken by showing “Z could also cause Y.”
What Actually Strengthens Arguments
Pattern 1: Support the Assumption
Explicitly state what the argument assumed but didn’t prove. If the argument assumes no alternatives, the option says “researchers controlled for alternative factors.”
Pattern 2: Rule Out Alternatives
Effective for causal and plan arguments. If policy X reduced crime, showing cities without X saw no reduction rules out external factors.
Pattern 3: Show Data is Reliable
For survey arguments, showing the sample was random, large, and representative makes evidence more credible.
Example: Argument: “Survey shows 70% prefer product A, so A will dominate.”
Strengthen: “Survey used random sampling across all demographics.”
Pattern 4: Show Plan Achieves Goal
Evidence that the plan works in similar contexts and side effects are manageable.
Pattern 5: Make Comparison Fair
Show both X and Y were tested under similar conditions and X consistently outperformed.
Strategy in Action
Imagine an argument: “Company A’s productivity increased 20% after installing new software. All companies should install this software.” What would strengthen this most?
The strongest option would be: “Companies without the software showed no productivity changes during the same period.”
Why? This rules out the alternative explanation that external factors caused the improvement. Maybe the economy improved, or the industry had seasonal gains. By showing the control group didn’t improve, you isolate the software as the cause.
For plan/causal arguments, the best strengthen option usually eliminates alternative explanations rather than just supporting the mechanism.
What Actually Weakens Arguments
Pattern 1: Introduce Counter-Evidence
Data contradicting the conclusion or showing evidence is flawed.
Pattern 2: Provide Alternative Causes
Most powerful for causal arguments. If X caused Y, showing Z could have caused Y creates doubt.
Weaken Principle: You don’t need to disprove. Just make the conclusion less likely.
Pattern 3: Show Important Differences
For comparisons, reveal X and Y weren’t tested in similar conditions.
Pattern 4: Show Plan Won’t Work
Evidence the plan failed elsewhere or has serious drawbacks.
Pattern 5: Reveal Biased Data
Show sample was too small, biased, or questions were leading.
Causal Arguments: Special Patterns
To strengthen X-causes-Y: Show X preceded Y, Y increases with X, and other causes eliminated.
To weaken X-causes-Y: Show Y without X, X without Y, or factor Z that could cause both.
Reversed causation weakens: maybe Y causes X, not X causes Y.
Reality Check
Be honest: How often do you eliminate answer choices instead of just selecting what “sounds right”?
Most students pick what sounds right. 99+ percentilers eliminate what’s wrong.
There’s a massive difference. When you actively eliminate wrong answer types (too narrow, too broad, wrong focus), you’re training pattern recognition. When you just pick what sounds right, you’re gambling.
The traps in strengthen/weaken questions work precisely because they “sound right” to students who skim. They don’t work on students who systematically eliminate.
Your goal isn’t to find the right answer. It’s to eliminate 4 wrong answers, leaving only 1 standing. This changes everything.
Irrelevant Options and Common Traps
Trap 1: On Topic But Off Logic
Discusses the subject but doesn’t affect premise-conclusion link.
Trap 2: Restates
Repeats what argument already said. Adds no new information.
Trap 3: Attacks Wrong Claim
Critiques something the argument never claimed.
Trap 4: Affects Side Points
Impacts minor detail rather than core assumption.
Relevance Test: If hiding the option doesn’t change your confidence in the conclusion, it’s irrelevant.
Trap 5: Personal Opinion
Sounds persuasive to you but doesn’t logically affect the argument.
Trap 6: Scope Mismatch
Argument about “most cases,” option about “rare instances.”
Final Self-Assessment
After reading this entire guide, can you now explain the difference between strengthening an argument and proving it true?
If you can explain it clearly, you’ve internalized the concept. If you’re still fuzzy, that’s your signal to review.
Here’s a simple explanation you should be able to give:
“Strengthening makes the conclusion more likely but doesn’t prove it. If the argument has 60% probability of being correct and the option raises that to 75%, it strengthens even though doubt remains. Proof requires 100% certainty, which CAT never demands.”
If you can’t explain this clearly, review the “What Actually Strengthens Arguments” section. Understanding probability shifts vs. absolute proof is foundational.
Building Speed and Accuracy
Practice pre-thinking on 20 questions. Write what would strengthen/weaken before looking at options.
Tag argument types during practice: causal, plan, comparison, survey. After 30 questions, recognition becomes instant.
Track wrong answer patterns. Build awareness of systematic weaknesses.
Time yourself at 90 seconds per question.
Ready to test your understanding? The 25 flashcards above cover every nuance of strengthen/weaken arguments, and the practice exercise gives you real CAT-style questions to apply these strategies.
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about CR strengthen/weaken arguments answered
Critical reasoning strengthen/weaken questions typically account for 2-3 out of the 16 verbal ability questions. These appear as standalone arguments (not embedded in RC passages), requiring you to evaluate how new information affects logical connections.
The frequency varies but CAT consistently includes at least 2 CR strengthen/weaken questions. They test pure logical reasoning without requiring comprehension of longer texts, making them high-value targets for systematic preparation.
RC strengthen/weaken questions extract arguments from longer passages and ask how options affect those specific claims. CR strengthen/weaken questions present complete standalone arguments in 3-4 sentences, requiring pure logical analysis without passage comprehension.
The analytical method is identical—identify conclusion, premises, and assumption, then test options—but CR questions are faster because the argument is already isolated and clearly presented.
No. Strengthen options only need to make the conclusion more likely, not prove it definitively. If the argument has 60% probability of being correct and the option raises that to 75%, it strengthens even though doubt remains.
Think in terms of probability shifts. The option should increase your confidence in the conclusion. Complete proof is neither required nor expected in CAT strengthen questions.
Target 75-90 seconds per question. The 5-step method takes approximately 60 seconds (framing 15s, typing 10s, pre-thinking 15s, testing options 30s, selection 10s), with buffer for difficult arguments.
If you reach 90 seconds without clarity, apply the main-assumption tiebreaker: pick the option that most directly addresses the core logical gap rather than peripheral details.
Choose the one targeting the main assumption over one affecting side details. Ask: “Which option most directly addresses the logical gap between premises and conclusion?”
For strengthen: Pick the option that most removes the key doubt. For weaken: Pick the option introducing the strongest alternative explanation or most serious challenge.
Look for key markers. Causal: “X causes Y,” “led to,” “resulted in.” Plan: “should,” “must,” “policy,” “proposal.” Comparison: “better than,” “more effective,” “superior to.” Survey: “study shows,” “data indicates,” “research finds.”
Argument type predicts what strengthen/weaken patterns to expect, making option evaluation faster and more systematic.
Practice the pre-thinking drill on 30 questions. Before reading options, write one sentence predicting what would strengthen and one predicting what would weaken. Check if correct answers match your predictions.
Tag argument types during practice and track which types you miss most often. If causal arguments trip you up, focus 20 questions specifically on correlation-causation patterns.
Build the habit of articulating why options are relevant or irrelevant. For each option, say out loud: “This strengthens because…” or “This is irrelevant because…” Verbalizing forces explicit logical analysis rather than intuitive judgment.
Connect with Prashant
Founder, WordPandit & EDGE | CAT VARC Expert
With 18+ years of teaching experience and thousands of successful CAT aspirants, I’m here to help you master VARC. Whether you’re stuck on RC passages, vocabulary building, or exam strategy—let’s connect and solve it together.
Stuck on RC or VARC? Let’s Solve It Together! 💡
Don’t let doubts slow you down. Whether it’s a tricky RC passage, vocabulary confusion, or exam strategy—I’m here to help. Choose your preferred way to connect and let’s tackle your challenges head-on.
🌟 Explore The Learning Inc. Network
8 specialized platforms. 1 mission: Your success in competitive exams.
Trusted by 50,000+ learners across India
Learn.WordPandit
Learn With Prashant Sir
Mentor-led courses for CAT, GMAT, GRE, GD/PI/WAT. Structured learning with expert guidance.
WordPandit
Master Words. Master Exams.
10,000+ words with roots methodology. Your vocabulary foundation for competitive exams.
Preplite
Smart Learning. Smaller Budgets.
Affordable self-prep micro-courses. Pay only for what you need. Learn at your pace.
Readlite
Read Smart. Comprehend Better.
Daily curated articles across 60+ subjects. Build reading comprehension for RC mastery.
Easy Hinglish
English Seekhna Ab Hua Aasan!
Learn English the Indian way. Vocabulary explained in Hindi and English for better retention.
GD PI WAT
Ace Your MBA Interviews.
1,000+ GD topics, PI questions, and WAT guidance. Complete MBA admission prep.
GK365
Stay Informed. Stay Ahead.
Daily GK updates and current affairs. Never miss what matters for competitive exams.
Ask English Pro
Your Personal English Mentor.
Get expert answers to all your English questions with detailed video explanations.