GMAT Weaken CR: Stronger Claim Trap | OG | Secret Passwords

The Official GMAT Weaken question that begins "Secret passwords are often used to control access to computers" contains two wrong choices that fall into the same trap: attacking a stronger claim than the author made.

Some wrong answers in Weaken questions point to a real limitation of the plan and still weaken nothing. They feel convincing because they show the plan is not flawless. But if the author never claimed the plan was flawless, the choice is attacking a claim the argument never made.

Check How Strong the Conclusion Is

The way to catch this trap is to notice how strong the conclusion actually is before you read the choices. Does the author say the plan will improve something, or eliminate a problem? Make something better, or make it the best? Be helpful, or be sufficient on its own? A correct weakener must reduce your belief in the conclusion the author drew, at the strength the author drew it. (If you are new to reading plan-based conclusions, this article breaks it down.)

The Question Setup

Let's see how this works in a question.

In this question, the argument is about passwords used to control access to computers. When employees choose their own passwords, they often pick ones that are easy to guess, such as their initials or birthdates. The author recommends that employers assign randomly generated passwords instead, in order to improve security.

Look at the strength of that conclusion. The author claims that switching to random passwords will improve security. "Improve" is a comparison: security under the new system will be better than security under the current one. The author does not claim the system will become impossible to break into, or that passwords alone will keep it safe.

The Trap: Two Choices That Attack a Stronger Claim

Two choices fall into the trap.

The first says that if passwords are generated randomly, it is theoretically possible that an employee will be assigned a password they might have chosen on their own. This is new information, and it does not challenge a premise. It even shows a genuine limitation: random generation does not completely rule out an easy password. But compare the two systems. Under the current one, easily guessed passwords are frequent. Under the plan, they are only theoretically possible. The comparison still favors the plan, so your belief that security improves stays where it was.

The second says that physical controls, such as locked doors and guards, should be used in addition to passwords to maintain security. This suggests that passwords alone are not enough. But the author never said they were. A plan can need support from other measures and still be an improvement over what came before. The choice also says nothing about whether random passwords do better or worse than self-chosen ones, which is the comparison the conclusion rests on.

Same Choices, Stronger Conclusion

To see that this is about matching the claim and not about the choices themselves, change the conclusion. If the author had claimed that random passwords would make the system impossible to break into, the first choice would do real work, because even a small chance of an easy password would undercut that claim. If the author had claimed that random passwords alone would be enough to keep the system secure, the second choice would do real work too. The same choices can weaken a stronger conclusion and fail against a modest one.

The Habit This Builds

So before you evaluate the choices, ask yourself:

How strong is the author's claim: improve, eliminate, best, sufficient?
Does this choice attack that claim, or a stronger version of it?
If this choice is true, is the plan still likely to deliver what the author actually claimed?

If the choice only shows that the plan falls short of a claim the author never made, you can eliminate it, and you will know exactly why.

About the Weaken Beginner Series

This question is part of the Weaken Beginner Series, in which easy Official GMAT questions are used not to test what you know, but to reveal how you think. Each question targets a specific reasoning habit, one that shows up in a simple form on easy questions and a complex one on hard questions. If you are getting started with Weaken questions or if Weaken questions feel inconsistent for you, this series is built to show you exactly where the process is breaking down.

Solve the question on your own first. The reasoning you apply matters more than the answer you reach.

For targeted practice on Weaken and every other CR question type, with detailed feedback on each answer choice, start with the free CR diagnostic at gmatquizmaster.com.

The Plan Doesn't Have to Be Perfect: A Weaken Trap That Attacks the Wrong Claim