Comparative Strengthen/Weaken Questions

[hbtara]

I tend to do relatively well on causal-structure strengthen/weaken questions, but I have a very hard time with comparative strengthen/weaken questions. Could someone give me some pointers on how to go about solving a comparative strengthen/weaken LR question? I especially appreciate very formulaic methods, for instance if I want to weaken a causal LR argument I would look for 3 things: an alternative cause, a cause without an effect, and an effect without cause. The correct answer will ALWAYS do one of those things. Is there a similar logic to comparative strengthen/weaken questions?

[ohthatpatrick]

Tough to summarize all the various things we might choose to describe as Comparative arguments.

I'll give you the first handful that comes to mind, assuming that these must be among the most prevalent:

Analogy
Fairly simple formula here
Strengthen by making the things analogized seem more relevantly similar
Weaken by pointing out a meaningful difference

X is better than Y
To truly judge that claim, you'd need
- all the pros/cons of X
- all the pros/cons of Y
- a way to weigh the pros/cons of X against the pros/cons of Y

So strengthen by "providing a pro about X or a con about Y or by saying that a pro about X is more important than a pro about y".
Weaken by doing the opposite.

Two Groups involved in Sample/Experiment/Study
Arguments based on "two groups of bikers" typically have to assume that these two groups are fair to compare on initial reference points
f.e. similar talent, equipment, age range, fitness, proneness to injury, etc.

You strengthen by making the two groups more similar, "controlling" for variables (if you like the scientific method)
You weaken by doing the opposite

Try a few Str/Weak and see if you can add to any of these categories.