In Strengthen (and Weaken, and Evaluate) questions, the stem tells us to expect an argument that is vulnerable to criticism in some way. We therefore approach the stimulus with a critical eye, looking for unreasonable assumptions and faulty reasoning methods – weak points which can either be exploited (Weaken), bolstered (Strengthen), or questioned (Evaluate) by a critical reader.

Far and away the most common criticizable argument structure on display in these questions involves a type of causal reasoning we call “phenomenon-hypothesis”: the premises lay out some observations about the world (e.g. “I saw a bunch of birds flying south.”) and the conclusion offers a potential explanation for that phenomenon (e.g. “They must be fleeing a hoard of bird-eating godzillas.”)

This pattern is so common in these questions that “Am I in a phenomenon hypothesis world?” should be an explicit consideration in your mind as you approach the stimulus. Whenever you see it, the broad approach to anticipating the answer is similar: brainstorm some alternate explanations for the phenomenon (“maybe they’re just flying south because winter is coming”), and poke holes in the explanation presented to you (“there’s no such thing as bird-eating godzillas”).

Then, in Strengthen questions in particular, we take the additional step of repairing those vulnerabilities: correct answers will eliminate alternative explanations or bolster the plausibility of the explanation the argument offers.

This argument follows the phenomenon-hypothesis structure. The first two sentences describe a fact pattern, and the last sentence offers a potential explanation for those facts.

Fact 1: People get less sleep on daylight savings day.
Fact 2: People get into more crashes on daylight savings day.
_________
Hypothesis: The crashes are probably because people are getting less sleep.

So as usual our job is to brainstorm alternative explanations (to eliminate!) and bolster the offered explanation. First some alternative causes:

• Maybe people often have “daylight savings day” parties and get super drunk.
• Maybe governments often make changes to road signage on daylight savings day.
• Maybe there is a subculture of daylight savings purge people who engage in Mad Max style road warfare on daylight savings day.

You get it. Maybe [something else] happens on daylight savings day to cause accidents. Because we're in a Strengthen question, one category of answer choice to anticipate, is “No no, [that thing you’re thinking of] doesn’t happen.”

This particular explanation doesn’t have any glaring plausibility problems – it makes sense that sleep deprived people would get into more accidents – so there aren’t any clear “repair this hole” anticipations to be had here. Answer choices that touch on plausibility will likely come in the form of corroborating evidence – more data that suggest sleep deprivation is linked to traffic accidents.