This might be common knowledge and I have certainly come across this in the core curriculum, but did not quite grasp what is meant. I am realizing that argument type is more important than the actual details when it comes to weakening questions. The best way to start is to know what kind of argument the author made (e.g., argument that appeals to an analogous case, argument that appeals to science, argument by equivocation, arguments that ignore multiple sufficient conditions, etc.). So take your time looking at the argument as a whole, and approach the questions with an idea of what kind of argument the author is making in mind. There are various ways to weaken an argument depending on the type of argument, and I've noticed a consistent pattern where the correct answer choice directly relates to the argument type and is less concerned with the literal context of the argument.  For example, if the author makes an appeal to an analogous case, look for an answer that suggests these cases are not sufficiently analogous. If the argument is scientific in nature, look for answers that call the methodology into question or whether the study's results warrant the conclusion. If it is an argument by equivocation, look for an answer that explains why these two terms, principles, or settings are not actually equivalent. If an argument claims something is imperative (i.e., argument that ignores multiple sufficient conditions), look for answers that that express an alternate option. These are just some examples and feel free to add more types of arguments and systematic strategies used to attack an argument type.