The short answer
Does the evidence actually support the conclusion? The skill behind every strengthen/weaken question.
Written and checked by GAMSAT tutors — not AI-generated.
Try the reasoning style
We treat forgetting as a failure — a lapse to be patched with reminders and records. Yet a mind that kept everything could not think; it would drown in the undifferentiated noise of every moment it had ever lived. To forget is not so much to lose information as to decide, mostly without our noticing, what was never worth keeping.
The author's argument relies most directly on which unstated assumption?
Pick an option to see how the tutor reasons to the answer — not just whether you were right.
Not quite — the answer is B.
Work backwards from the conclusion: a mind that ‘kept everything’ supposedly ‘could not think.’ That only follows if thinking means leaving most of experience out — so B is the premise the argument quietly rests on. A raises reliability, which the passage never weighs; C contradicts ‘mostly without our noticing’; D smuggles in a claim about intellect the passage never makes. The question rewards finding the hidden premise, not recalling a fact.
An argument is only as strong as the link between its evidence and its conclusion. Section I constantly asks you to judge that link — and "strengthen" / "weaken" questions are exactly this skill in disguise.
The one question to ask
For any piece of evidence, ask: "If this were true, would it make the conclusion more likely?" Good evidence is relevant (bears on the claim), sufficient (enough to support it), and representative (not a biased or tiny sample).
The usual weaknesses
Watch for: a small or biased sample, a confounding variable (a third factor), an unrepresentative example, correlation treated as causation, and ignored alternative explanations. Naming the gap is how you weaken an argument.
Strengthen vs weaken
To STRENGTHEN
- Close a gap in the reasoning
- Rule out an alternative explanation
- Show the sample is representative
- Add relevant supporting evidence
To WEAKEN
- Expose an unstated assumption as false
- Offer an alternative explanation
- Show the sample is biased/too small
- Show the evidence is irrelevant
Worked example
"Employees who use the new software finish tasks faster, so the software makes people more productive." Which fact would most WEAKEN this?
Check yourself
An argument concludes a product is popular based on 12 reviews from the company's own staff. The biggest problem with this evidence is that the sample is:
Key takeaways
- Ask: if this evidence were true, would it make the conclusion more likely?
- Good evidence is relevant, sufficient and representative.
- Common gaps: small/biased samples, confounders, correlation≠causation.
- Weaken by offering an alternative explanation or exposing a false assumption.
- Strengthen by ruling alternatives out or closing the reasoning gap.
Practise this with real GAMSAT-style questions
Free account: a timed diagnostic, an AI tutor that explains every answer, essay marking on the official rubric, and a plan built around your weak spots.