Fantastic insight, sir. I would agree if you memorize these three logical fallacies:
1. Generalizing from particulars (representativeness)
2. Taking correlation as causation
3. Lack of substantiating evidence
You can almost always ace the AWA, and given good grammar and structure, score a 6.0.
Interestingly enough on the real thing for the first time since I noticed th trend I didn't use causality. It seemed like the argument might have actually established causality (these guys accomplished this by
doing this, so these other guys should do the same thing). So for a second weakness I used their recommended action. The recommended action mentioned an actual amount, yet the argument mentioned none. So how do you know that that's the amount needed? Anyway, altogether I got a 4.5 though.
BTW, I tried to be vague, I don't know if these get recycled or not and if I can get in trouble for giving out this info. Probably paranoia on my part though.