Day 35 of 168 · Week 6
Day 35 / 168 Week 6 of 28 Phase 2: Logical Reasoning Deep Dive

Strengthen II: Causal Arguments, Plans & Strengthen-EXCEPT

🕑 ~75 min · Archetype A — LR Deep Dive

Strengthen II: Causal Plans & Strengthen-EXCEPT

Two remaining Strengthen patterns: strengthening a plan/prediction argument, and the EXCEPT variant, where four answers strengthen and the correct one is the one that doesn't.

1. Strengthening Plan Arguments

"Doing X will achieve Y" arguments are strengthened by evidence that X is feasible, that X will actually cause Y, or that no significant side effect will undermine Y.

2. Strengthen-EXCEPT

Same double-check-the-stem discipline from Day 5: four choices strengthen, one doesn't (it's either neutral or actually weakens). Read the stem twice before touching answer choices.

3. Distinguishing "Doesn't Strengthen" From "Weakens"

The correct EXCEPT answer can be either irrelevant or actively weakening — both satisfy "does not strengthen." Don't assume it has to be a weakener.

Practice items on this page are curriculum-authored in LSAT style; they are not official LSAC questions. Real drilling happens on LawHub — see the assignment below.

Q1. Argument: "Switching to a four-day work week will increase productivity." Which of the following would NOT strengthen this argument?

A. A pilot program at a similar company found no change in output despite the shorter week
B. A pilot program at a similar company found increased output per hour
C. Employees report higher focus on the days they do work
D. The change reduces burnout, which independently correlates with higher output
Correct answer: A. A pilot showing no change in output doesn't support the productivity-increase claim — the correct EXCEPT answer here is the one that fails to strengthen.

LawHub drill-tier LR section, untimed. Scan for Strengthen and Strengthen-EXCEPT stems.

Saturday: full synthesis of the assumption family — Necessary Assumption, Sufficient Assumption, and Strengthen, contrasted directly, closing out Week 6.