[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-178914-105":59,"doc-detail-178914-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","lr-snippets-by-family-1-reading-judging-weaken-strengthen","LR-Snippets-by-Family-1 - Reading, Judging, Weaken, Strengthen","","Materials organize Logical Reasoning practice by “family” of question types, focusing on how to read stimuli, predict answer choices, and judge whether arguments contain flawed assumptions, missing links, reversed or negated logic, and unproven claims. It provides structured guidance for countering anti-conclusions with conditional logic, causal alternate explanations, comparisons, and recommendations, along with criteria to evaluate descriptive truth, objectionability, and impact on evidence strength.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":20,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/lr-snippets-by-family-1-reading-judging-weaken-strengthen/178914/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/lr-snippets-by-family-1-reading-judging-weaken-strengthen/178914.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Emma Mercer","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-06","2026-09-02",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":29},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"How should a test-taker read the stimulus to respond effectively?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"They should identify conclusion versus evidence, find entry points for assumptions or illegal moves, and use conditional logic concepts like reversals and negations to anticipate rebuttals and flaws.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What are the key criteria for judging whether an answer is correct?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Answers are judged by descriptive truth and whether they are objectionable, whether the argument depends on the missing idea, and whether the answer meaningfully weakens or undermines the argument through impact on evidence.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What common mistakes lead to wrong answers in these logical reasoning families?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Wrong choices often involve being too strong or out of scope, using irrelevant comparisons or causal relationships, reversing logic or reasoning order, or addressing an idea that has no impact on the stated conclusion.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},178914,1788334446,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":19,"category_name":20,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":29,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":24,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":143},962084925502,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","Assumption/Objection Family  \nInference Family  \nParadox Island  \n\n| rank  \u003Cbr>Flaw  \u003Cbr>1st   | READING STIMULUS  \u003Cbr>Be the Anti-Conclusion's Lawyer  \u003Cbr>Read like a skeptic!You have to argue  \u003Cbr>with this person.Find an entry point.Can  \u003Cbr>you call out an illegal move,spot an  \u003Cbr>assumption or argue the anti-conclusion?  \u003Cbr>SEE THIS?CONSIDER THIS:  \u003Cbr>conditional logic Nec/Suff (reversals/negations)  \u003Cbr>rebuttal arg Ad Hom,Unproven/False  \u003Cbr>copycat ideas Sampling,Part/Whole  \u003Cbr>causal conclusion Alternate Explanations  \u003Cbr>recommendations Overlooked Downsides  \u003Cbr>comparisons Overlooked Differences   | JUDGING ANSWERS  \u003Cbr>1.Is this descriptively true?  \u003Cbr>2.If so,is it objectionable?  \u003Cbr>\"Takes for granted that X….\"  \u003Cbr>“Presumes Xw/o justification”  \u003Cbr>\"Fails to establish that X..\"  \u003Cbr>Did we NEED to assume X?  \u003Cbr>“Fails to consider that Y.….”  \u003Cbr>\"Overlooks possibility that Y.…\"  \u003Cbr>If true,would Y WEAKEN?  \u003Cbr>“InfersY on the basis of X”  \u003Cbr>\"Takes for granted if X then Y\"  \u003Cbr>“Fails to consider even if X,~Y”  \u003Cbr>Does X match Ev.and Y Conc.?   | WRONG ANSWERS  \u003Cbr>Not True they didn't assume that/  \u003Cbr>they didn't fail to consider that(very  \u003Cbr>rare)/they didn't conclude that/they  \u003Cbr>didn't have evidence like that/they  \u003Cbr>didn't make that reasoning move.  \u003Cbr>Not Objectionable that idea is  \u003Cbr>irrelevant so no need to consider it/  \u003Cbr>that description is true but that's not a  \u003Cbr>reasoning problem/that assumption  \u003Cbr>is totally reasonable(very rare).  \u003Cbr>RIGHT ANSWERS  \u003Cbr>-call out assumptions  \u003Cbr>present reasonable objections  \u003Cbr>-describe faulty reasoning moves   |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| ~40%of them commit one of the  \u003Cbr>STIMULUS  \u003Cbr>Famous Flaws.60%commit  \u003Cbr>arguments,reasoning  \u003Cbr>unique flaws.  \u003Cbr>PREDICT ANSWER?  \u003Cbr>Very important to try to predict an  \u003Cbr>answer.Keep analyzing until you  \u003Cbr>Medium High  \u003Cbr>can articulate a flaw,but stay  \u003Cbr>flexible while reading the answers.  \u003Cbr>STEM KEYWORDS  \u003Cbr>The argument is most vulnerable to  \u003Cbr>vulnerable to criticism,  \u003Cbr>criticism because it  \u003Cbr>flawed,questionable   |  |  |  |\n| rank  \u003Cbr>Necessary Assumption  \u003Cbr>2nd   | READING STIMULUS  \u003Cbr>Look for Missing Links/Ideas  \u003Cbr>If there's conditional logic or a math-y feel:  \u003Cbr>-Is there a New Concept in the Conclusion &  \u003Cbr>what's its closest match in the Evidence?  \u003Cbr>-Is there a Term Shift,assumed similarity,or  \u003Cbr>untriggered conditional in the Evidence?  \u003Cbr>Spot Objections to Neutralize  \u003Cbr>If arg.sounds pretty good,Anti-Conclusion!  \u003Cbr>Causal-Alternate explanations  \u003Cbr>Plan-Possible downsides  \u003Cbr>Comparison-Crucial differences   | JUDGING ANSWERS  \u003Cbr>-Does this need to be true for  \u003Cbr>the argument to work?  \u003Cbr>-IfI negate this,does it weaken  \u003Cbr>the arg?(don't use Neg Test on  \u003Cbr>conditional answers)  \u003Cbr>-Lean away from strong  \u003Cbr>wording and new ideas.  \u003Cbr>-Lean towards familiar ideas  \u003Cbr>and answers that rule out an  \u003Cbr>idea using the word “not”(drop  \u003Cbr>the'not',does it weaken?)   | WRONG ANSWERS  \u003Cbr>Too Strong most/the only =red flags!  \u003Cbr>Out of Scope unmentioned ideas not  \u003Cbr>relevant to conclusion  \u003Cbr>Irrelevant Comparison/  \u003Cbr>Causal Relationship/Quality  \u003Cbr>Weakens appealing but opposite!  \u003Cbr>Reversed/Negated Logic right  \u003Cbr>ideas,wrong order  \u003Cbr>RIGHT ANSWERS  \u003Cbr>-Missing Links connect ideas  \u003Cbr>-Defenders rule out objections   |\n| STIMULUS  \u003Cbr>1/2 test a missing link or fact  \u003Cbr>internal to arg,and 1/2 test a new  \u003Cbr>arguments,reasoning  \u003Cbr>consideration that could weaken.  \u003Cbr>For missing links /facts,we'll have  \u003Cbr>PREDICT ANSWER?  \u003Cbr>a very specific prediction,but for  \u003Cbr>Medium  \u003Cbr>new considerations,a fuzzy idea.  \u003Cbr>STEM KEYWORDS  \u003Cbr>Which of the following in an  \u003Cbr>assumption,assuming  \u003Cbr>assumption on which the argument  \u003Cbr>depends?  \u003Cbr>depends/relies/must   |  |  |  |\n| rank  \u003Cbr>Weaken  \u003Cbr>3rd   | READING STIMULUS  \u003Cbr>Find Conclusion vs.Evidence  \u003Cbr>If there's a Curious Fact,anticipate a  \u003Cbr>c","cbCaifw6UUN0kPT9","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaifw6UUN0kPT9","pdf",2928270,"English","# Reading Stimulus\n## Be the Anti-Conclusion's Lawyer\n## Look for Missing Links/Ideas\n## Find Conclusion vs. Evidence\n# Judging Answers\n## Descriptive Truth and Objectionability\n## Needed Truth for the Argument to Work\n## Impact on Argument Strength\n# Selecting Correct vs. Wrong Answers\n## Correct Reasoning Moves\n## Common Failure Patterns\n# Strategy by Question Rank\n## Necessary Assumption\n## Weaken\n## Strengthen","[{\"question\":\"How should a test-taker read the stimulus to respond effectively?\",\"answer\":\"They should identify conclusion versus evidence, find entry points for assumptions or illegal moves, and use conditional logic concepts like reversals and negations to anticipate rebuttals and flaws.\"},{\"question\":\"What are the key criteria for judging whether an answer is correct?\",\"answer\":\"Answers are judged by descriptive truth and whether they are objectionable, whether the argument depends on the missing idea, and whether the answer meaningfully weakens or undermines the argument through impact on evidence.\"},{\"question\":\"What common mistakes lead to wrong answers in these logical reasoning families?\",\"answer\":\"Wrong choices often involve being too strong or out of scope, using irrelevant comparisons or causal relationships, reversing logic or reasoning order, or addressing an idea that has no impact on the stated conclusion.\"}]","LR-Snippets-by-Family-1 - Reading, Judging, Weaken, Strengthen | PDF",13]