Which of the following questions is NOT part of evaluating the strength of an attack?

The aspect of evaluating the strength of an attack focuses heavily on how effectively an argument challenges the opposing position. While it is crucial for an attacker to define their claim clearly—that is, for them to articulate what they are arguing against—this is more about the clarity of the attack than its strength.

The other options directly relate to how effectively the attack engages with the opposing case. Making the clash clear, addressing a major component of the opposing argument, and weakening the opposition’s stance with a solid argument all contribute to assessing the attack's impact. They help in determining whether the attack is successfully undermining the opposing case rather than simply presenting an unclear or poorly articulated argument.

In contrast, defining a claim is a foundational step in any argument but does not inherently assess the strength of the attack itself. Instead, it sets the stage for the attack but does not measure its effectiveness in relation to the opposition, which is why it is not part of evaluating the overall strength of an attack.