Weaken vs Flaw Questions

sophia.a.liang

I'm not too sure what is the difference between weaken questions and flaw questions. If we're describing a flaw that the author makes in their reasoning, for example that they take for granted an assumption, then wouldn't it be that if this answer were true (like the unstated assumption was actually false), then this would weaken the argument since it would undermine the conclusion? I feel like the intent of these two questions kind of overlap, like is pointing out a flaw in the author's argument not the same thing as trying to weaken it?

tbynum30

They certainly do overlap a bit. If I had to explain it, I'd say this is the difference:

Flaws: it's about how the argument is functioning (is there something wrong with the structure, weak evidence, assumptions, etc)

-When approaching flaws, you're more so looking at the options and seeing what matches with what the argument does. It can't be the flaw if the argument doesn't commit it.

Weaken: it's much more broad and strictly about impacting the support between the Premises and the Conclusion. You can weaken with a flaw for sure.

-When approaching weakening Qs, you're looking for what impacts the relationship based on the stated ACs. You plug and chug and see what weakens the argument.

I apologize if any of this feels repetitive. They certainly overlap, there are just a few subtle differences in approach from what I've noticed.

natemanwell1

no they do not overlap in that way. pointing out a flaw in an argument does not weaken the argument as it as the flaw is already in the argument, so there cannot be any additional weakening from something that is already there. to weaken the argument you need to supply new information.