Master Strengthen/Weaken Questions
Learn to analyze argument structure, spot hidden assumptions, and evaluate logical impact. The skill that separates 95th from 99th percentile in CAT RC.
📚 Strengthen/Weaken Flashcards
Master argument analysis with 20 essential concepts
Loading…
Loading…
🎯 Test Your Argument Analysis Skills
5 CAT-style strengthen/weaken questions with detailed explanations
🎯 Test Complete!
City officials implemented a new traffic light timing system across downtown intersections last year. The system uses sensors to adjust signal duration based on real-time traffic flow. Since implementation, average commute times through downtown have decreased by 12 minutes during peak hours. Traffic engineers conclude that the new timing system has successfully reduced congestion in the downtown area.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the traffic engineers’ conclusion?
✓ Correct! Option C is the answer.
Why C is correct: The engineers conclude that the timing system caused the reduced commute times. Option C strengthens this by showing that similar systems produced similar results elsewhere, making it more likely the system itself (not some other factor) caused the improvement. This follows the “direct support / extra evidence” pattern.
Option A – Background Only: Information about the manufacturer is contextual but doesn’t affect whether the system caused the time reduction.
Option B – Alternative Explanation (Disguised): This actually weakens rather than strengthens. If construction ended during the same period, that could explain reduced commute times instead of the timing system.
Option D – Irrelevant Detail: Cost information doesn’t affect whether the system reduced commute times.
Online retailers have noticed that customers who create wish lists on shopping platforms make significantly more purchases than customers who don’t use this feature. Data from a major e-commerce platform shows that wish list users spend an average of $240 per month compared to $95 per month for non-users. Marketing analysts conclude that encouraging customers to create wish lists is an effective strategy for increasing sales revenue.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the marketing analysts’ conclusion?
✓ Correct! Option B is the answer.
Why B is correct: The analysts assume that creating wish lists causes increased purchases. Option B reverses this causal direction, suggesting that frequent purchasers (who would buy more anyway) simply tend to use wish lists. This follows the “reverse cause-effect” weaken pattern. If the causal arrow points the wrong way, the conclusion that wish lists drive purchases falls apart.
Option A – Irrelevant Timeline: How long the feature has existed doesn’t affect whether it causes increased purchases. Six months is sufficient time to gather data.
Option C – Outside Scope: What competitors do is irrelevant to whether wish lists drive purchases on this platform.
Option D – Possible Strengthen: This could actually strengthen the conclusion by providing a mechanism (email reminders) for how wish lists lead to purchases.
Marine biologists studying coral reef ecosystems observed that reefs located near sustainable fishing communities show 40% less degradation than reefs in areas with unrestricted fishing practices. These communities follow traditional fishing methods that limit catch sizes, restrict fishing to certain seasons, and protect juvenile fish populations. Researchers conclude that traditional fishing practices are more effective at preserving coral reef health than modern commercial fishing approaches.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the researchers’ conclusion?
✓ Correct! Option A is the answer.
Why A is correct: The researchers attribute better reef health to traditional fishing practices. Option A introduces alternative explanations: lower pollution and less boat traffic. These factors could explain the 40% difference without traditional fishing methods being the cause. This follows the “alternative cause/explanation” pattern – the most common and effective way to weaken causal arguments.
Option B – Supports Rather Than Weakens: This actually strengthens the conclusion by providing a mechanism for why commercial fishing harms reefs.
Option C – Background Information: The age and transmission of fishing knowledge provides historical context but doesn’t address whether these practices actually cause better reef health.
Option D – Pure Scope Shift: General information about reef ecosystems is completely disconnected from the specific causal claim about fishing practices.
A multinational corporation conducted an internal study comparing productivity between employees working in traditional open-plan offices and those working in private offices. Employees in private offices completed 25% more tasks per week and reported 30% fewer interruptions than their open-plan counterparts. Additionally, private office workers used sick leave 15% less frequently. The company’s productivity consultants recommend transitioning to private office layouts to maximize employee output and reduce absenteeism.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the productivity consultants’ recommendation?
✓ Correct! Option A is the answer.
Why A is correct: The consultants’ conclusion rests on study data comparing office types. Option A strengthens by making the evidence more reliable – showing the sample was representative across departments and experience levels. This follows the “make evidence more reliable” pattern. If the study might have sampled only certain employee types, the conclusion would be questionable.
Option B – Background Only: Historical information about open-plan office origins doesn’t affect whether private offices improve current productivity.
Option C – Possible Weaken: This could actually weaken by introducing a complication (employee preferences) that might reduce the effectiveness of transitioning to private offices.
Option D – Alternative Explanation: Recent renovations could explain some productivity differences – maybe open-plan offices were previously outdated while private offices were already modern.
Educational psychologists investigated the relationship between note-taking methods and retention in college students. Students who took handwritten notes during lectures scored 15% higher on conceptual understanding tests compared to students who typed notes on laptops. Brain imaging studies showed that handwriting activates more neural pathways associated with memory encoding than typing. The researchers conclude that universities should discourage laptop use during lectures to improve student learning outcomes.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the researchers’ policy recommendation?
✓ Correct! Option A is the answer.
Why A is correct: The researchers assume handwriting causes better learning outcomes. Option A suggests reverse causation or selection bias: students with stronger study skills choose handwriting, and those skills (not the handwriting itself) drive better test performance. This follows the “attack the assumption” and “reverse cause-effect” patterns. If students who handwrite are fundamentally different from those who type, the comparison is invalid.
Option B – Supports Rather Than Weakens: Showing tests measured deep processing actually strengthens the conclusion that handwriting improves meaningful learning.
Option C – Missing the Critical Connection: While typing captures more information faster, this doesn’t address whether that information is learned better. The argument is about retention and understanding, not volume of notes.
Option D – Scope Limitation Not Weakness: Measuring only during note-taking rather than review is a study scope limitation, but doesn’t undermine the observed correlation between handwriting and better test scores.
💡 How to Master Strengthen/Weaken Questions
Strategic approaches proven to boost accuracy from 60% to 90%+ in argument analysis
The Non-Negotiable Three-Step Method
Never look at answer options before completing these three steps. This is the foundation of 90%+ accuracy on strengthen/weaken questions.
- Step 1: Circle the Conclusion – Look for indicator words (therefore, thus, hence, so, clearly). This is what the author wants you to believe.
- Step 2: Underline the Evidence – What facts, data, or studies support the conclusion? These are the stated premises.
- Step 3: Write the Assumption – In the margin, write one sentence stating what must be true for the conclusion to follow from the evidence.
Why This Works
The assumption is always what strengthen/weaken options target. If you can’t articulate the assumption, you’re guessing based on what sounds relevant rather than what logically matters.
Time investment: 30-40 seconds on this analysis saves 40+ seconds in option evaluation because you know exactly what you’re looking for.
Practice the assumption articulation drill: Before checking explanations on practice questions, write down the assumption in your own words. If you can’t write it clearly, you haven’t understood the argument structure yet. This forces explicit rather than intuitive analysis.
The Confidence Test Framework
For every option, use this subjective but reliable test: “If this were true, would I feel more confident, less confident, or same confidence about the conclusion?”
Decision Framework
- More Confident: The option makes the assumption more reasonable or adds supporting evidence → Strengthen
- Less Confident: The option attacks the assumption or introduces alternatives → Weaken
- Same Confidence: The option is related to the topic but doesn’t affect the logical connection → Neither
This test works because strengthen/weaken questions are ultimately about confidence shifts. An option doesn’t need to prove or disprove the conclusion—it just needs to change how likely the conclusion seems.
- Eliminate options that leave your confidence unchanged first (fastest elimination)
- Among remaining options, pick the one that creates the biggest confidence shift
- If two options both weaken, choose the one that introduces a more devastating alternative or attacks a more fundamental assumption
Say out loud while practicing: “This makes me [more/less/same] confident because…” Verbalizing forces you to articulate the logical connection. You’ll catch yourself saying “This is related to the topic but doesn’t actually affect the conclusion.”
Build Your Pattern Recognition Library
Most CAT strengthen/weaken questions use recurring argument patterns. Learn to recognize these instantly:
🔍 Causal Arguments (60% of questions)
Pattern: “A caused B” or “X led to Y”
Hidden Assumption: No other factors caused B; the correlation indicates causation
Strengthen: Rule out alternative causes; show mechanism connecting A to B
Weaken: Introduce alternative explanations; reverse causation (B caused A); show correlation only
🔍 Representative Sample Arguments (25% of questions)
Pattern: “Studies show…” or “Survey data indicates…”
Hidden Assumption: The sample accurately represents the larger population
Strengthen: Confirm random sampling; large sample size; validated methodology
Weaken: Show sample bias; self-selection; unrepresentative demographics
🔍 Analogy Arguments (15% of questions)
Pattern: “Just as X works in situation A, Y will work in situation B”
Hidden Assumption: The situations are similar in relevant ways
Strengthen: Highlight relevant similarities; show past pattern reliability
Weaken: Point out critical differences; show analogy breaks down
When you see “Studies show…” your mind should automatically think: “Is the sample representative? Are there alternative explanations? Is this correlation or causation?” Build these automatic pattern checks through repetitive practice.
Master the Trap Taxonomy
Wrong answers follow predictable patterns. Build immunity by classifying every wrong option you encounter:
- Pure Restatement: Just repeats what passage said in different words (adds nothing new)
- Outside Scope: Brings in different time period, location, or group not relevant to argument
- Background Only: Provides context or general information without affecting the logical connection
- Extreme Language: Sounds dramatic (“completely destroys,” “absolutely proves”) but lacks logical impact
- Attacks Something Else: Undermines a different claim, person, or argument not being tested
Improvement Drill
After solving each strengthen/weaken question:
- For each wrong option, write one sentence explaining why it doesn’t work
- Classify the trap type (restatement, outside scope, etc.)
- Identify your error: Did you misidentify the conclusion? Miss the assumption? Fall for a specific trap?
- Do 5 more questions specifically watching for that error type
- Track which trap types you fall for most often—this is your personalized weakness map
If you consistently pick “background only” options, you’re not distinguishing context from logical impact. If you fall for “outside scope” traps, you’re matching keywords instead of testing relevance. Targeted practice on your specific weakness yields 15-20% accuracy improvement within one week.
The 90-Second Time Management Protocol
Strengthen/weaken questions should take 90-120 seconds total. Here’s the breakdown:
Optimal Time Allocation
- Three-step analysis (conclusion, evidence, assumption): 30-40 seconds
- Reading and eliminating obvious traps: 20-30 seconds
- Evaluating remaining 2-3 options: 20-30 seconds
- Final verification: 10-20 seconds
- Total: 90-120 seconds
- Don’t rush the initial analysis—spending 35 seconds finding the assumption saves 30 seconds in option evaluation
- If you hit 120 seconds without clarity, use the magnitude principle: pick the option that would change your confidence the most
- These questions reward accuracy over speed—one strengthen/weaken question is worth the same as any other RC question
If you’re spending 3+ minutes on these questions, you’re overthinking. The longer you deliberate, the more you second-guess clear answers. Build the discipline to analyze, decide, and move on. Confidence in your method matters more than perfect certainty in your answer.
The Complete Guide: From Theory to Mastery
You’ve practiced the flashcards. You’ve tested yourself. Now understand why the strategies work—and how to adapt them to any strengthen/weaken question you’ll encounter.
Understanding Strengthen/Weaken RC Questions in CAT Reading Comprehension
Strengthen and weaken questions are argument questions embedded in RC passages. They test whether you can identify how new information affects the logical connection between evidence and conclusion. This is not about understanding the passage’s main idea. It’s about evaluating argument structure.
Every strengthen/weaken question follows the same pattern: the passage presents premises leading to a conclusion, and the question asks which option makes that conclusion more or less likely to be true. The passage might discuss an author’s claim, a researcher’s theory, or a critic’s objection. Your job is analyzing the logical relationship, not judging the topic’s importance.
Most test-takers fail these questions by focusing on content rather than argument structure. They pick options that discuss the passage’s topic but don’t actually affect the conclusion’s validity. CAT exploits this by including options that sound relevant but are logically disconnected from the argument being tested.
The key is mechanical analysis. Find the conclusion. Identify the evidence. Spot the hidden assumption connecting them. Then evaluate which option affects that assumption most significantly. Skip any step and you’re guessing based on what sounds important rather than what logically matters.
Pause & Reflect
Before reading further: Can you identify the hidden assumption in your last practice question without looking at the explanation?
If you struggled with this, you’re likely jumping to options before understanding the argument structure. The assumption is the bridge between evidence and conclusion.
This is the #1 mistake in strengthen/weaken questions. You can’t evaluate whether something strengthens or weakens an argument if you don’t know what that argument assumes.
Never look at options before completing: (1) Find conclusion, (2) Underline evidence, (3) Write the assumption. This 30-second investment determines whether you’ll guess or analyze.
The Core 3-Step Method for Every Question
Before looking at any options, complete this three-step analysis. Every single time. No exceptions.
Step 1: Find the Conclusion
The conclusion is the main claim being argued. Look for indicator words: therefore, thus, hence, so, clearly, this shows that, we can conclude, it follows that. The conclusion is what the author wants you to believe based on the evidence provided.
Don’t confuse the conclusion with the topic. The topic might be “urban farming.” The conclusion might be “urban farming reduces city food insecurity.” The conclusion is the specific claim being made about the topic.
Step 2: Underline the Evidence
What facts, data, examples, studies, or definitions support the conclusion? These are the premises. They’re presented as established truths that justify accepting the conclusion.
Evidence might include: survey results, expert opinions, historical examples, statistical correlations, logical principles, or observed patterns. Identify exactly what information the author uses to build their argument.
Critical Distinction: Evidence = what’s given as fact. Conclusion = what’s claimed based on that evidence. The gap between these two is where assumptions live.
Step 3: Guess the Assumption
Ask: “For this conclusion to follow from this evidence, what must be true in the background?” The assumption is the unstated link that makes the argument work.
Example:
Evidence: “Sales increased after the marketing campaign.”
Conclusion: “The marketing campaign was effective.”
Hidden assumption: “The sales increase was caused by the marketing campaign, not some other factor.”
That assumption is what strengthen/weaken options will target.
Once you have these three elements clear, evaluate options by asking: Does this make the assumption more reasonable (strengthen) or less reasonable (weaken)?
Test Your Understanding
Quick check: If a passage argues “Students who take notes by hand score higher on tests,” what’s the hidden assumption?
Hidden Assumption: “Handwriting causes better test performance” (not just correlation).
Notice the assumption bridges the gap: Evidence shows correlation (handwriting + higher scores). Conclusion claims causation (handwriting causes higher scores). The assumption is that the causation exists, not some other factor.
Strengthen: Rule out alternative explanations; show mechanism connecting handwriting to learning.
Weaken: Reverse causation (students with better study skills choose handwriting); introduce confounding variables; show correlation only.
When evidence shows correlation, the assumption is usually that causation exists and has the claimed direction. This is the most common assumption pattern in CAT strengthen/weaken questions.
Five Patterns That Strengthen Arguments
Strengthen options follow predictable patterns. Learn these and you’ll recognize correct answers in seconds rather than minutes.
Pattern 1: Direct Support / Extra Evidence
The option provides additional data of the same type pointing in the same direction as the conclusion. If the passage cites one study showing benefit X, the strengthen option might cite three more studies showing the same benefit. This works because it reduces the chance that the original evidence was an anomaly. More instances of the same pattern make the conclusion more reliable.
Pattern 2: Confirm the Assumption
The option explicitly states that the hidden assumption is actually true or very likely. This is the most direct way to strengthen an argument.
Example:
Argument: “Company profits increased after implementing the new policy, so the policy was beneficial.”
Hidden assumption: “The profit increase resulted from the policy, not external factors.”
Strengthen option: “The company’s competitors, who didn’t implement the policy, saw no profit increase during the same period.”
(This confirms the assumption by removing alternative explanations.)
Pattern 3: Remove Alternatives
The option rules out other explanations, causes, or reasons that could account for the evidence. This strengthens by showing the conclusion is the only viable explanation remaining. If someone argues “A caused B,” showing that C, D, and E definitely didn’t cause B makes the A-caused-B conclusion stronger by elimination.
Pattern 4: Bridge the Gap
The option connects two ideas that were loosely linked in the passage. It makes explicit a relationship the argument assumed but didn’t prove. If the passage jumps from “students who take practice tests” to “students who score higher,” a bridge option might establish “practice tests improve test-taking skills, which correlate with higher scores.”
Pattern 5: Make Evidence More Reliable
The option shows the study, sample, or method used is trustworthy, representative, or unbiased. This strengthens by validating that the evidence actually supports what the argument claims. If the conclusion rests on survey data, showing the survey used random sampling and validated questions makes the argument stronger. The evidence becomes more credible.
Quick Test for Strengthen: “If this option were true, would I feel MORE confident about the conclusion?” If yes, it strengthens. If confidence stays the same, it’s irrelevant. If confidence decreases, it weakens.
Strategy in Action
Imagine a passage argues “Online education is as effective as traditional education because online enrollment grew while quality metrics improved.” Which strengthen pattern would work best?
Best pattern: Make Evidence More Reliable (Pattern 5)
The argument rests on “quality metrics improved.” The hidden assumption is that these metrics actually measure educational effectiveness. A strengthen option showing “quality metrics correlate with long-term learning outcomes and career success” would validate the evidence foundation.
Why this works better than other patterns:
- Pattern 1 (more evidence) would help but doesn’t address the core weakness
- Pattern 2 (confirm assumption) is hard to apply directly here
- Pattern 3 (remove alternatives) doesn’t address metric validity
- Pattern 4 (bridge gap) would help but is less direct
When evidence quality is questionable, “Make Evidence More Reliable” is usually the strongest strengthen pattern. When causation is claimed, “Remove Alternatives” or “Confirm Assumption” work best.
Five Patterns That Weaken Arguments
Weaken options attack the logical connection between evidence and conclusion. They don’t need to prove the conclusion wrong, just make it less likely.
Pattern 1: Alternative Cause / Explanation
The option shows the evidence can be explained without using the author’s conclusion. If the passage argues “A caused B,” the weaken option demonstrates “Actually, C could have caused B.” This is the most common weaken pattern in CAT. It doesn’t prove A didn’t cause B. It just shows B might have happened anyway, reducing confidence in the causal claim.
Pattern 2: Counterexample / Exception
The option gives a case where the premises hold but the conclusion fails. This shows the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from the evidence. Example: Argument says “All X have property Y.” Counterexample shows “Here’s an X that doesn’t have Y.” This breaks the universal claim even if most X do have Y.
Pattern 3: Attack the Assumption
The option shows the key assumption is doubtful, false, or often violated. This directly undermines the argument’s logical foundation.
Example:
Argument: “Online education enrollment grew 30% while quality metrics improved, proving online education is now as effective as traditional education.”
Hidden assumption: “Quality metrics accurately measure educational effectiveness.”
Weaken option: “Recent analysis shows quality metrics primarily measure student satisfaction, which doesn’t correlate with learning outcomes.”
(This attacks the assumption, making the conclusion less reliable.)
Pattern 4: Attack the Evidence
The option shows the sample is biased, data is incomplete, study is flawed, or only correlation exists without causation. This undermines the premises themselves. If the argument rests on a survey of 50 people, showing “the 50 people surveyed were all from the same demographic” weakens the conclusion because the evidence isn’t representative.
Pattern 5: Reverse the Cause-Effect
The option suggests the conclusion has the direction wrong. Instead of A causing B, maybe B caused A. Or both A and B are caused by C. This is particularly effective against causal arguments. “Students who read more have higher test scores” might be weakened by “students with higher cognitive abilities both read more and score higher on tests” (common cause, not causation).
Quick Test for Weaken: “If this option were true, would I feel LESS confident about the conclusion?” If yes, it weakens. If confidence stays the same, it’s irrelevant. If confidence increases, it strengthens.
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 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 how you approach every option—you’re looking for reasons to reject, not reasons to accept.
What Does NOT Actually Strengthen or Weaken
Learn to instantly eliminate these five trap types. They appear in 60% of wrong answers.
Trap 1: Pure Restatement
The option just repeats or paraphrases what the passage already said. This adds no new information. If the passage says X and the option says X in different words, it neither strengthens nor weakens. It’s circular. Test: Does this tell me something new, or just repeat existing information?
Trap 2: Outside Scope
The option brings in a totally new topic, time period, or group not relevant to the argument. Even if the information is true and related to the general subject, it doesn’t affect the specific conclusion being tested. Example: Passage argues about urban areas in 2020. Option discusses rural areas in 1990. Different scope, different time, irrelevant to the argument.
Trap 3: Background Only
The option gives general information about the topic but doesn’t hit the conclusion-evidence link. It provides context without affecting the logical relationship. These options often start with “Generally,” “In most cases,” or “Historically.” They’re true but don’t address the specific argument’s validity.
Trap 4: Extreme / Emotional Language
The option sounds strong (“completely destroys,” “absolutely proves,” “utterly fails”) but doesn’t logically change the connection between evidence and conclusion. Emotional intensity is not logical force. CAT includes these because test-takers mistake passionate language for argumentative strength. Ignore the drama and check the logic.
Trap 5: Attacking Something Else
The option attacks a person, a side topic, or a different argument, but not the specific argument under question. The passage might discuss Policy A’s effectiveness. The option attacks Policy B or the person who proposed Policy A. Always verify: Does this affect the conclusion we’re actually testing, or does it address something adjacent?
Final Self-Assessment
After reading this entire guide, can you now explain the three-step method to someone who’s never taken the CAT?
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:
“Step 1: Circle the conclusion—what the author wants you to believe. Step 2: Underline the evidence—the facts supporting it. Step 3: Write the assumption—what must be true for the conclusion to follow from the evidence. Then evaluate options by whether they make that assumption more or less reasonable.”
If you can’t explain this clearly, review the flashcards and re-read the “Three-Step Method” section. Understanding this framework is foundational to 90%+ accuracy.
Building Recognition Speed
Top scorers identify argument structure in 20-30 seconds. They spot the conclusion, evidence, and assumption before reading options. This speed comes from deliberate practice.
Practice the conclusion-spotting drill. In every passage, highlight every claim that could be a conclusion before looking at questions. Build the habit of identifying “what is being argued” separate from “what is being discussed.”
For every strengthen/weaken question you practice, write down the hidden assumption before checking the explanation. If you can’t articulate the assumption, you’re not ready to evaluate options. This drill forces you to find the logical gap the question will exploit.
Track wrong answer patterns. Are you falling for restatement traps? Outside scope traps? Alternative explanation traps? Each trap type requires a different fix. Build awareness of your specific weaknesses.
Ready to test your understanding? The 20 flashcards above cover every nuance of strengthen/weaken questions, and the practice exercise gives you real CAT-style questions to apply these strategies.
Next, explore related RC question types to master comprehensive VARC preparation.
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about strengthen/weaken RC questions answered
Strengthen and weaken questions typically account for 2-4 questions out of the 24 RC questions in CAT VARC. They don’t appear as frequently as inference or detail questions, but they’re strategically critical because they test a distinct skill set that many candidates haven’t practiced systematically.
These questions usually appear on passages that present arguments, research findings, or policy recommendations – content where there’s a clear premise-conclusion structure. Not every passage will have strengthen/weaken questions, but when they do appear, accuracy rates tend to be lower than average because candidates confuse relevant-sounding options with logically impactful ones.
The questions often use precise language: “most seriously weakens,” “most strengthens,” “would provide the strongest support,” “casts the most doubt on.” These modifiers signal that multiple options may have some effect, but you’re looking for the biggest impact. Magnitude matters as much as direction.
Execute the three-step method before looking at options. Every single time. Step 1: Find the conclusion (look for therefore, thus, hence, so, clearly). Step 2: Underline the evidence (facts, data, studies supporting it). Step 3: Guess the assumption (what must be true for conclusion to follow?).
This sequence is non-negotiable. If you look at options before completing these steps, you’ll evaluate options based on what sounds relevant rather than what logically matters. The assumption is always what strengthen/weaken options target.
Strengthen: Does this make the assumption more reasonable? Does my confidence in the conclusion increase?
Weaken: Does this attack the assumption? Does my confidence in the conclusion decrease?
Neither: Does this add information without changing confidence in the conclusion?
Use the confidence test for every option. Read it and ask: “If this were true, would I feel more confident, less confident, or same confidence about the conclusion?” This subjective test is faster and more reliable than trying to categorize options into patterns while under time pressure.
Eliminate in order: First, remove options that are pure restatements or background only. Second, eliminate outside scope options. Third, check remaining options for which creates the biggest confidence shift. This systematic elimination typically gets you from five options to two in 20 seconds.
Start with the conclusion-evidence gap. The assumption always bridges the distance between what’s proven (evidence) and what’s claimed (conclusion). Ask: “What’s missing? What needs to be true for this jump to make sense?”
Most assumptions fall into three categories. Causal assumptions: “The observed effect was caused by the stated factor, not something else.” Representative assumptions: “The sample/study/data accurately reflects the general case.” Definitional assumptions: “The terms used mean what the argument requires them to mean.”
Evidence: “Sales increased after marketing campaign.”
Conclusion: “Marketing campaign was effective.”
Missing link: “What if sales increased because of competitor’s closure, seasonal trends, or economic boom?”
Assumption: “The sales increase resulted from the campaign, not external factors.”
If you’re stuck, look for what the argument doesn’t address. Does it assume no alternative explanations exist? Does it assume a correlation is causation? Does it assume the future will resemble the past? These common assumption types appear in 70% of strengthen/weaken questions.
Practice the assumption articulation drill: Before checking explanations, write one sentence stating what the argument assumes. If you can’t articulate it, you’re not ready to evaluate options. This forces explicit rather than intuitive analysis.
90-120 seconds maximum once you’ve read the passage.
These questions should be among the longer RC question types because you’re doing structural analysis, not just comprehension. The three-step method takes 30-40 seconds. Option evaluation takes another 40-60 seconds. Verification takes 10-20 seconds.
• Three-step analysis (conclusion, evidence, assumption): 30-40 seconds
• Reading and eliminating obvious traps: 20-30 seconds
• Evaluating remaining 2-3 options: 20-30 seconds
• Final verification: 10-20 seconds
Total: 90-120 seconds
Don’t rush the initial analysis. Spending 35 seconds on the three-step method saves you 30 seconds in option evaluation because you know exactly what you’re looking for. Candidates who skip straight to options waste time evaluating irrelevant information.
If you hit 120 seconds without clarity, use the magnitude principle: Pick the option that would change your confidence in the conclusion the most. Even if two options both weaken, one usually introduces a devastating alternative explanation while the other raises a minor concern. Go with the bigger impact.
These questions reward accuracy over speed. One strengthen/weaken question is worth the same as any other RC question, but the skill is more transferable. Getting better at argument analysis helps with inference questions, critical reasoning, and even some verbal ability questions.
They require the same analytical process but test opposite directions. Neither is objectively easier. However, many test-takers find strengthen questions more straightforward because adding support feels more intuitive than finding flaws.
Weaken questions require recognizing ways arguments can fail: alternative explanations, reversed causation, biased evidence, violated assumptions. This demands more creativity because there are many ways to undermine an argument but fewer ways to support it.
Strengthen questions follow more predictable patterns: confirm the assumption, add similar evidence, remove alternatives, bridge gaps, validate methodology. These are concrete operations. Weaken questions often require seeing what the argument overlooked.
Strengthen: “Here’s more of what supports this” or “Here’s why the assumption holds”
Weaken: “Here’s what you didn’t consider” or “Here’s why this could be wrong”
Strengthen adds. Weaken reveals.
Track your accuracy separately for each type. If you’re at 75% on strengthen but 55% on weaken, that signals you need practice identifying alternative explanations and assumption attacks. Build a mental catalog of common ways arguments fail: selection bias, correlation not causation, reversed causation, unrepresentative samples, temporal coincidence.
Weakening makes the conclusion less likely to be true. Disproving shows the conclusion is definitely false. Weaken questions ask for the former, not the latter.
An option that introduces an alternative explanation weakens without disproving. If the passage argues “A caused B,” showing “C might have caused B” makes the conclusion less certain but doesn’t prove A didn’t cause B. Both could be true. That’s sufficient for weakening.
Test-takers often reject correct weaken options because they don’t “completely destroy” the argument. That’s not the standard. The question asks what “most weakens” or “casts doubt on” the conclusion. Doubt is not disproof.
Argument: “Company profits rose after new CEO arrived, so the CEO’s leadership improved performance.”
Option that weakens: “The company’s largest competitor declared bankruptcy one month before the new CEO started.”
This doesn’t prove the CEO didn’t help, but it introduces an alternative explanation that significantly reduces confidence in the causal claim.
Similarly for strengthen questions: the option doesn’t need to prove the conclusion, just make it more likely. Showing the sample was representative strengthens without proving the conclusion is definitely correct. It removes one source of doubt.
Magnitude thinking helps here: Does this option shift my confidence significantly? If yes, that’s enough. Don’t demand certainty when the question asks for impact.
Master the three-step method through repetitive practice. Do 20 questions where you write down conclusion, evidence, and assumption before looking at options. Then check if your assumption matches what the explanation identifies. This builds the pattern recognition for finding logical gaps.
Build a trap taxonomy. After each question, classify wrong answers: Was it a restatement? Outside scope? Background only? Extreme language? Attacking something else? Track which traps you fall for most often. If you consistently pick “background only” options, you’re not distinguishing context from logical impact.
1. Solve a strengthen/weaken question
2. For each wrong option, write why it doesn’t work (1 sentence)
3. Identify your error: Did you misidentify the conclusion? Miss the assumption? Fall for a specific trap type?
4. Do 5 more questions specifically watching for that error type
5. Reassess – you should see 15-20% accuracy improvement
Practice the confidence test explicitly. For each option, say out loud: “This makes me more/less/same confidence about the conclusion because…” Verbalizing forces you to articulate the logical connection (or lack thereof). You’ll catch yourself saying “This is related to the topic but doesn’t actually affect the conclusion.”
Study argument patterns. Most CAT strengthen/weaken questions involve causal claims, representative sampling, or definitional issues. Build familiarity with how these argument types can be strengthened or attacked. When you see “Studies show…” your mind should automatically think “Is the sample representative? Are there alternative explanations?”
Finally, time yourself strictly. These questions should take 90-120 seconds. If you’re spending 3+ minutes, you’re overthinking. The longer you deliberate, the more you second-guess clear answers. Build the discipline to analyze, decide, and move on. Confidence in your method matters more than perfect certainty in your answer.
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.