- Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the coach's advice?
Answer: High-altitude training can lead to altitude sickness in individuals not accustomed to such environments, reducing training effectiveness.
When you encounter a "weaken the argument" question, you need to identify an assumption the argument makes and find evidence that undermines it. The coach's argument assumes that what works for professional athletes will work equally well for amateur runners.
The correct answer is C because it directly attacks this assumption by showing that amateur runners may experience a fundamental barrier that professionals don't face. If high-altitude training causes altitude sickness in people unaccustomed to such environments, it would actually reduce training effectiveness for amateurs - the opposite of the intended benefit. This creates a crucial difference between professional athletes (who are likely accustomed to various training conditions) and amateur runners.
Let's examine why the other options don't weaken the argument as effectively: A addresses practical concerns about scheduling, but this doesn't challenge whether high-altitude training would be beneficial if amateurs could do it. B points out that effects are temporary, but this applies equally to professionals and amateurs - it doesn't show why the advice is specifically bad for amateurs. D mentions nutrition plans but doesn't suggest this undermines the altitude training recommendation; it's just additional information about professional training regimens.
The key strategy for weakening questions is to look for answer choices that reveal a fatal flaw in applying the premise to the conclusion. Here, the coach assumes amateur runners can achieve the same benefits as professionals, but C shows they may actually experience harm instead of benefit due to their different conditioning levels.
- Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the administrator's statement?
Answer: After lecture videos were introduced at a similar institution, average lecture attendance declined sharply, and exam scores remained unchanged.
When you encounter a "weaken the argument" question, you need to identify the conclusion and then find evidence that undermines the logical connection between the premise and that conclusion. Here, the administrator concludes that recorded lecture videos will improve learning outcomes because students can rewatch complex material at their own pace.
Choice B most effectively weakens this argument by providing concrete evidence that contradicts the expected outcome. At a similar institution, lecture videos led to declined attendance while exam scores stayed the same—meaning learning outcomes didn't actually improve despite the theoretical benefit of rewatching content. This directly challenges the administrator's prediction.
Let's examine why the other options fail to weaken the argument: Choice A actually supports the administrator's position by highlighting another benefit of recorded lectures. Choice C identifies a practical challenge (cost) but doesn't address whether the videos would improve learning outcomes once implemented. Choice D describes a complementary teaching strategy but doesn't contradict the claim that recorded videos help learning.
The key distinction is that B provides empirical evidence showing the administrator's predicted outcome didn't occur in practice, while the other choices either support the argument or address irrelevant concerns.
Strategy tip: In weaken questions, look for answer choices that directly contradict the conclusion with specific evidence or examples. Avoid options that merely present obstacles, costs, or alternative viewpoints without challenging the core claim.
- Which of the following, if true, most seriously challenges the analyst's contention?
Answer: Most weekend shoppers at the current location live within walking distance and rarely drive to the store.
When you encounter a "challenge" question on the GMAT, you're looking for information that undermines the core assumption underlying the argument. Here, the analyst assumes that easier parking will boost weekend sales, which implies that parking difficulty is currently limiting sales.
The correct answer, C, devastates this assumption by revealing that most weekend shoppers walk to the store rather than drive. If customers aren't driving, then parking availability is irrelevant to their shopping decisions. This directly contradicts the analyst's premise that parking constraints are holding back weekend sales.
Let's examine why the other choices don't work as effectively. Choice A introduces competition at the new location, which could hurt sales, but this doesn't challenge the specific claim about parking improving sales—it's an external factor. Choice B mentions traffic congestion, which might offset some parking benefits, but doesn't eliminate the potential advantage of easier parking once customers arrive. Choice D states that weekend sales already exceed weekday sales, but this doesn't contradict the idea that better parking could boost weekend sales even further.
The key strategy here is to identify the argument's core assumption—that parking difficulty currently limits weekend sales—and find the choice that most directly contradicts this assumption. Look for answers that attack the fundamental logic rather than introducing tangential concerns. On strengthen/weaken questions, the most powerful answers typically address the connection between the premise and conclusion, not external factors.
- Which of the following, if true, would most seriously undermine the blogger's conclusion?
Answer: Most translation apps require an internet connection, which is not consistently available in many popular travel destinations.
When you encounter a "weaken the conclusion" question, you need to find evidence that makes the author's argument less convincing. The blogger concludes that foreign language study is unnecessary because translation apps can handle menus and street signs instantly.
The correct answer, A, directly attacks a key assumption in the blogger's reasoning: that these apps will work reliably when needed. If translation apps require internet connections that aren't consistently available at travel destinations, then the "instant" translation the blogger relies on becomes unreliable. This forces travelers back to needing language skills, seriously undermining the conclusion that language study is unnecessary.
Let's examine why the other choices fail to weaken the argument effectively. Choice B actually supports the blogger's position by showing that apps can work offline through downloaded phrase libraries. Choice C strengthens the argument by indicating that the blogger's audience travels to places with good data coverage, making apps more reliable. Choice D also supports the blogger by describing technological improvements that make translation apps work better.
The key strategy for weaken questions is to identify what the argument assumes must be true, then find an answer choice that shows that assumption might be false. Here, the blogger assumes translation technology will be available when needed. Choice A directly challenges that assumption by highlighting a practical limitation that could leave travelers without their digital crutch, making language preparation valuable again.
- Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the social scientist's claim?
Answer: Pilot programs of four-day workweeks have shown increases in employee-reported job satisfaction but no corresponding decrease in turnover rates.
When you encounter a "weaken" question on GMAT Verbal, you need to identify which answer choice directly undermines the causal relationship in the argument. Here, the social scientist claims that four-day workweeks reduce turnover because workers value the added leisure time.
Answer choice A directly contradicts this claim by showing that even when job satisfaction increases (suggesting workers do value the extra day), turnover rates don't actually decrease. This breaks the core causal link the scientist proposes—if the supposed cause (valuing leisure) is present but the predicted effect (reduced turnover) doesn't occur, the argument falls apart.
Let's examine why the other choices don't weaken the argument: B) identifies implementation challenges in certain industries but doesn't challenge whether four-day weeks reduce turnover when they are implemented. This is about feasibility, not effectiveness. C) describes how employees use their extra day off, but this doesn't contradict the idea that they value it or that it reduces turnover—personal errands could still be valuable to workers. D) actually supports implementing four-day weeks by showing additional benefits beyond reduced turnover, which if anything strengthens the case for such programs.
Remember that effective weakeners in GMAT Critical Reasoning attack the argument's core logic, not peripheral issues. Look for answer choices that show the proposed cause failing to produce the predicted effect, or that introduce alternative explanations for the phenomenon. Avoid choices that merely present implementation challenges or irrelevant information.
- Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the officials' claim?
Answer: Many downtown employers reimbursed their employees for the new surcharge so that workers would not be discouraged from arriving at the usual time.
When you encounter questions that ask what "casts doubt" on a claim, you're looking for evidence that directly undermines the proposed cause-and-effect relationship. Here, officials claim the surcharge will reduce congestion because commuters will switch to public transit.
The correct answer is B because it identifies a factor that would prevent the intended behavioral change. If employers reimburse employees for the surcharge, then workers face no financial incentive to abandon their cars. The surcharge becomes meaningless to them personally, so they'll continue driving as before. This directly contradicts the officials' assumption that financial pressure will drive the switch to public transit.
Let's examine why the other options don't cast doubt: A actually strengthens the officials' claim by making public transit more attractive relative to driving. C doesn't undermine the policy since carpooling still reduces the number of vehicles on the road, supporting the congestion-reduction goal. D is irrelevant because it discusses afternoon traffic patterns, while the policy specifically targets morning rush hour.
The key strategy here is to identify what assumption underlies the officials' reasoning. They assume people will respond to financial incentives by changing behavior. Any answer choice that eliminates or neutralizes those incentives will cast doubt on their claim. Watch for similar patterns in other GMAT questions where policies or interventions depend on predicted human responses—the correct answer often reveals why people might not behave as expected.
- Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the biologist's argument?
Answer: The endangered fish breed primarily in shallow coves that tourist boats rarely enter.
When you encounter a "weaken the argument" question, you need to find information that undermines the logical connection between the premise and conclusion. Here, the biologist concludes that banning tourist boats will increase fish populations because boat noise disrupts breeding rituals.
The correct answer is B because it breaks the causal chain the biologist assumes. If the endangered fish breed primarily in shallow coves that tourist boats rarely enter, then boat noise isn't actually disrupting their breeding rituals. This directly contradicts the biologist's premise that boat noise is the problem affecting fish reproduction. Without this disruption, banning boats wouldn't logically lead to increased fish populations.
Let's examine why the other choices don't weaken the argument: A actually strengthens the biologist's position by showing that lakes without boat traffic do support larger fish populations. C introduces economic concerns but doesn't challenge whether boat noise affects fish breeding—it's irrelevant to the biological claim. D mentions existing regulations but doesn't indicate whether these restrictions are sufficient to prevent breeding disruption; the noise could still be problematic even with horsepower limits.
Remember that in weaken questions, you're looking for answer choices that attack the argument's assumptions or break the logical connection between evidence and conclusion. The most effective weakeners often show that the proposed cause doesn't actually create the stated effect, as choice B demonstrates here.
- Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the official's argument?
Answer: After a similar ban was enacted in another country, black-market flavored cartridges became widely available to teenagers at lower prices than before.
When you encounter an "undermine the argument" question, you're looking for evidence that shows the conclusion won't follow from the premises, even if the premises are true. The official's argument has a clear logical structure: because teens prefer flavored e-cigarettes, banning them will significantly decrease teenage nicotine addiction.
The correct answer is C because it demonstrates that the proposed solution (banning flavored e-cigarettes) could actually backfire. If a similar ban led to cheaper, more accessible black-market products, then banning flavored e-cigarettes might increase rather than decrease teenage access and use. This directly contradicts the official's prediction of significantly decreased addiction.
Looking at the wrong answers: A discusses adult smokers using flavored e-cigarettes to quit tobacco, but this doesn't undermine the argument about teenage addiction—it's addressing a different population entirely. B actually supports the official's position by suggesting that health-conscious teens avoid vaping, which aligns with wanting to reduce teenage nicotine addiction. D mentions that teens begin vaping out of curiosity rather than flavor attraction, but even if curiosity initiates use, teens could still prefer flavored products afterward, making the ban potentially effective.
On GMAT Critical Reasoning questions about undermining arguments, always look for answers that show the proposed cause-and-effect relationship is flawed or could produce unintended consequences. The strongest undermining evidence often reveals how a plan might achieve the opposite of its intended goal.
- Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the nutritionist's claim?
Answer: When a similar label-removal policy was tried in one region, sales of snacks previously labeled "low fat" actually increased as health-conscious consumers assumed the products were now full-fat and tastier.
When you encounter a "weaken the argument" question, you need to identify the logical connection the author is making and find evidence that breaks or undermines that chain of reasoning.
The nutritionist's argument follows this logic: people overeat "low-fat" labeled foods → removing these labels → people will eat fewer calories from such snacks. This assumes that without the labels, people's eating behavior will change in a predictable way.
Choice C destroys this assumption by showing that removing labels can have the opposite effect. When labels were actually removed in a real-world test, sales of the formerly low-fat snacks increased because consumers assumed they were now full-fat and therefore tastier. This directly contradicts the nutritionist's prediction that label removal leads to reduced consumption.
Choice A is irrelevant because manufacturers' contingency plans don't affect whether the nutritionist's causal claim is valid. Choice B actually supports the nutritionist's argument by confirming that low-fat labels do encourage overeating. Choice D seems tempting, but it's too general—even if taste is the primary factor overall, the "low-fat" label could still influence portion sizes as the nutritionist claims.
The key strategy for weaken questions is to look for real-world evidence that contradicts the author's predicted outcome, or alternative explanations that show the proposed cause won't produce the expected effect. Choice C provides both: concrete evidence of the opposite result occurring when the proposed solution was actually tried.
- Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editor's argument?
Answer: Many students currently buy used print textbooks at prices well below the list price of new books and then resell them at the end of the term.
When you encounter a "weaken the argument" question, you need to identify the argument's core logic and find what undermines its key assumption. The editor's argument follows this logic: e-books at the same price as print books → students save shipping costs → overall spending decreases. The hidden assumption is that students currently pay full price for new print books plus shipping.
Choice A destroys this assumption by revealing that many students actually buy used textbooks below list price and recoup money by reselling them. This creates a complete economic picture where students' net cost for print books may be much lower than the editor assumes. If a student buys a used book for $80 and sells it for $60, their net cost is only $20 plus shipping—potentially much less than a $150 e-book that has no resale value.
Choice B actually strengthens the argument by suggesting e-books offer additional value. Choice C about varying shipping costs is irrelevant since the argument concerns whether shipping costs exist, not their amount. Choice D about study habits, while potentially concerning, doesn't address the economic claim about spending reduction.
The key trap here is focusing on peripheral issues rather than the economic foundation of the argument. The editor's reasoning collapses if students aren't actually paying the assumed baseline costs for print materials.
Strategy tip: In "weaken the argument" questions, look for answer choices that challenge unstated assumptions rather than just contradicting the conclusion. The strongest weakeners often reveal that the arguer's baseline assumptions about the current situation are flawed.
- Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the Institute's recommendation?
Answer: People who bring smartphones into the bedroom are more likely than those who do not to have jobs that require them to respond to late-night messages and thus chronically sleep fewer hours.
When you encounter a "weaken the argument" question, look for answer choices that either challenge the evidence or reveal problems with the reasoning that connects evidence to conclusion.
The Institute's argument follows this logic: Study shows people with devices nearby report more fatigue → Therefore, moving devices away will reduce fatigue. This assumes the devices themselves cause the fatigue, but what if there's another explanation?
Choice B provides that alternative explanation by revealing a confounding variable. If people who bring phones to bed do so because their jobs require late-night responses, then they're sleeping fewer hours overall. This means their fatigue likely stems from sleep deprivation, not device proximity. Moving the phone away won't help if they still need to respond to work messages and lose sleep. This directly undermines the recommendation's effectiveness.
Choice A is irrelevant because digital clocks emit much less disruptive light than smartphones and don't involve the same behavioral patterns. Choice C attacks how the data was grouped, but this doesn't change the fundamental relationship observed or challenge whether the recommendation would work. Choice D introduces caffeine as a factor, but this doesn't explain why device proximity specifically correlates with fatigue—caffeine consumption could affect both groups equally.
Remember: The strongest way to weaken a causal argument is to show that the supposed cause and effect actually share a common underlying cause. Look for answer choices that reveal hidden variables that could explain the observed correlation without supporting the proposed solution.
- Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the gardener's claim?
Answer: In a controlled experiment, tomato plots interplanted with marigolds experienced the same percentage of leaf damage from insects as plots without marigolds but treated with no pesticides.
When you encounter a question asking what "calls into question" or "weakens" a claim, you're dealing with critical reasoning. Your job is to find evidence that directly contradicts or undermines the central assertion.
The gardener's claim has two key components: that marigolds repel insects from tomatoes AND that this makes pesticides unnecessary. To weaken this claim effectively, you need evidence showing marigolds don't actually provide the promised protection.
Choice B delivers exactly this kind of contradictory evidence. If tomato plots with marigolds suffered the same insect damage as plots with no marigolds and no pesticides, then marigolds clearly aren't providing any protective benefit. This directly contradicts the core premise that marigolds repel harmful insects.
Choice A is irrelevant because crop rotation addresses soil depletion, not insect control—it doesn't touch the marigold claim. Choice C presents a compatibility issue between some marigold varieties and tomato growing conditions, but this doesn't prove marigolds are ineffective when they can be grown together. Choice D actually supports avoiding chemical pesticides by highlighting their negative effects on beneficial insects, which could strengthen rather than weaken the case for natural alternatives like marigolds.
Strategy tip: In "weaken the argument" questions, look for answer choices that provide direct contradictory evidence to the main claim. Avoid choices that discuss related but irrelevant topics, present minor obstacles, or actually support the argument from a different angle.
- Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the coach's reasoning?
Answer: Highly organized individuals are more likely than others to adopt digital planning tools.
This question tests your ability to identify flaws in causal reasoning, specifically the difference between correlation and causation. The coach observes that people who use digital planners are more productive and concludes that digital planners cause increased productivity.
The correct answer is D because it reveals an alternative explanation for the observed correlation. If highly organized individuals are naturally drawn to digital planning tools, then their productivity might stem from their pre-existing organizational skills rather than from the planner itself. This creates a classic "third variable" problem—the coach may be confusing cause and effect. The digital planner doesn't make people productive; rather, productive people choose digital planners.
Let's examine why the other options don't weaken the argument effectively: A) The fact that corporations provide free subscriptions is irrelevant to whether digital planners actually increase productivity. B) This option actually strengthens the coach's argument by explaining a mechanism through which digital planners could boost productivity. C) Visual preferences about paper versus digital planners don't address the core claim about productivity benefits.
When you encounter strengthen/weaken questions involving correlations, always look for answer choices that suggest alternative causal relationships. The pattern to remember: just because two things occur together doesn't mean one causes the other. Watch for answers that introduce a "third variable" that could explain the observed relationship without supporting the author's causal conclusion.
- Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the advocate's reasoning?
Answer: Refrigerators account for only a fraction of a typical household's total electricity consumption, with heating, cooling, and lighting together consuming far more power.
This question tests your ability to identify flawed reasoning in arguments that make improper assumptions about parts versus wholes.
The advocate's reasoning contains a critical flaw: they assume that because refrigerators use 40% less electricity, the entire household bill will drop by 40%. This assumes refrigerators represent the majority of household electricity consumption, but this assumption isn't supported.
Answer choice A directly exposes this flaw by revealing that refrigerators account for only a fraction of total household electricity use, while heating, cooling, and lighting consume far more power. If refrigerators represent, say, only 15% of total electricity consumption, then even a 40% reduction in refrigerator usage would only reduce the total bill by about 6% (40% of 15%), not 40%.
Choice B actually strengthens the advocate's position by making energy-efficient refrigerators more financially attractive through rebates. Choice C introduces purchase cost concerns but doesn't address whether the 40% utility bill reduction claim is accurate. Choice D mentions that savings vary by refrigerator size and age, but this doesn't challenge the core reasoning error—it just suggests the exact percentage might differ while still accepting the flawed assumption.
When you encounter strengthen/weaken questions on the GMAT, always look for unstated assumptions in the argument. Arguments that extrapolate from a part to the whole (like assuming refrigerator savings equals total household savings) are particularly vulnerable to attacks that reveal the true relationship between the part and the whole.
- Which of the following, if true, most undermines the executive's reasoning?
Answer: Customers who contact phone support typically do so when experiencing time-sensitive problems, such as a vehicle failing to unlock through the app.
This is a "weaken the argument" question that tests your ability to identify flawed reasoning and find evidence that undermines a conclusion. The executive concludes that eliminating phone support won't harm customer satisfaction simply because most customers use the app for booking.
The key flaw in this reasoning is assuming that booking method predicts support needs. Choice A exposes this perfectly: customers use phone support specifically when the app fails them during urgent situations like being unable to unlock a vehicle. Even if only a small percentage of customers need phone support, these are precisely the moments when alternative help is most critical for satisfaction. Eliminating phone support would leave customers stranded during app failures, directly harming satisfaction regardless of normal booking patterns.
Choice B actually supports the executive's position by showing that phone lines are already unavailable when most customers are active. Choice C presents a cost consideration but doesn't address whether eliminating phone support would harm customer satisfaction—the executive's specific claim. Choice D is irrelevant since it discusses desktop versus app usage, not phone support needs.
The trap here is focusing on quantity (most customers use the app) rather than quality (when do customers most need alternative support). The executive's reasoning treats all customer interactions as equivalent, ignoring that support needs arise precisely when primary systems fail.
Strategy tip: In "weaken the argument" questions, look for answer choices that reveal unstated assumptions or show scenarios where the premises can be true but the conclusion still fails.
- Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the consultant's argument?
Answer: Some regular customers object to plant-based meats, believing that restaurants offering them compromise on culinary authenticity.
When you encounter a "weaken the argument" question, you're looking for evidence that directly challenges the conclusion or undermines a key assumption. Here, the consultant concludes that plant-based options will increase total sales by attracting new customers without discouraging existing ones.
The correct answer is D because it directly contradicts the consultant's assumption that existing patrons won't be discouraged. If some regular customers object to plant-based meats and view restaurants offering them as compromising on authenticity, these customers might reduce their visits or stop coming altogether. This scenario undermines the argument that total sales will increase, since the restaurant could lose existing business.
Let's examine why the other options don't weaken the argument: A actually supports the consultant's position by suggesting new customers would indeed be attracted to try plant-based options. B is irrelevant to whether sales will increase—higher profit margins don't address customer behavior or total sales volume. C doesn't weaken the argument either; while competition might affect implementation strategy, it doesn't challenge whether adding these options will attract customers without discouraging existing ones.
Remember that "weaken" questions often hinge on unstated assumptions in the original argument. Here, the consultant assumes existing customers will remain neutral or positive about the change. Always identify what the argument takes for granted, then look for answer choices that show those assumptions might be false.
- Which of the following, if true, most seriously challenges the councilor's argument?
Answer: In some cities that have installed bright streetlights, burglars have shifted their activities to better-lit areas because they can see potential entry points more clearly at night.
When you encounter a "challenge the argument" question, you need to find evidence that undermines the logical connection between the premise and conclusion. Here, the councilor concludes that bright LED lights will reduce crime because better illumination makes criminal activity easier to detect.
The correct answer is A because it directly contradicts the councilor's core assumption. If burglars actually prefer well-lit areas because they can see potential entry points more clearly, then installing brighter lights could potentially increase rather than decrease criminal activity. This creates a scenario where the proposed solution backfires, seriously challenging the argument's foundation.
Let's examine why the other choices don't work: B discusses energy efficiency and maintenance costs, which are irrelevant to whether the lights will reduce crime. This is a classic distractor that introduces true but unrelated information. C mentions resident support for aesthetic reasons, but public opinion about appearance doesn't address the crime reduction claim. D talks about police patrol scheduling, but this doesn't challenge whether brighter lights deter crime—it's about police response patterns, not lighting effectiveness.
The key trap here is distinguishing between information that's merely irrelevant (B, C, D) versus information that actually contradicts the argument's logic (A). Remember: to challenge an argument on the GMAT, you need to attack the logical link between evidence and conclusion, not just introduce tangential facts. Look specifically for answer choices that suggest the proposed cause-and-effect relationship might work in reverse or not work at all.
- Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the company's assertion?
Answer: Independent laboratory tests show that the supplement's total protein content is lower than that of most whey protein products with similar serving sizes.
When you encounter a question asking what "most seriously undermines" a company's assertion, you're dealing with a weaken-the-argument question. You need to find evidence that directly contradicts or casts serious doubt on the specific claim being made.
The company's assertion has two key components: their supplement helps users gain muscle mass faster than traditional whey protein because it contains a proprietary blend of amino acids. To undermine this claim effectively, you need to attack either the uniqueness of their formula or their product's ability to deliver superior results.
Choice B directly challenges the product's ability to deliver superior muscle-building results. If independent tests show the supplement has lower total protein content than comparable whey products, this seriously undermines the claim that it will help users gain muscle faster. Protein content is fundamental to muscle building, so having less protein makes the "faster gains" claim highly questionable.
Choice A weakens the uniqueness claim but doesn't eliminate the possibility that their specific blend could still work better. Choice C introduces irrelevant information about allergies that doesn't address the effectiveness comparison. Choice D actually supports the company by providing positive user feedback, making it strengthen rather than weaken their position.
Strategy tip: In weaken-the-argument questions, look for answer choices that directly contradict the core claim with objective evidence. Avoid answers that are tangential to the main assertion or that introduce unrelated factors, even if those factors seem negative.
- Which of the following, if true, would most seriously undermine the magazine's recommendation?
Answer: The laboratory trial measured self-reported hunger but did not track the total calories that subjects consumed over the rest of the day.
When you encounter a question asking what would "undermine" or "weaken" an argument, you need to identify what would make the conclusion less credible. Here, the magazine concludes that dark chocolate aids weight loss because it curbs appetite, based on subjects reporting less hunger 30 minutes after eating chocolate.
The correct answer is A because it exposes a critical gap in the evidence. The study only measured how hungry people felt shortly after eating chocolate, but weight loss depends on actual calorie consumption over time. If the chocolate-eating subjects ended up consuming the same or more total calories throughout the day despite feeling less hungry initially, then the chocolate wouldn't actually aid weight loss. This directly challenges the connection between reduced hunger feelings and the claimed weight loss benefit.
Let's examine why the other choices don't undermine the argument as effectively. Choice B about antioxidant levels in different chocolate brands is irrelevant to the appetite/weight loss claim. Choice C about taste preferences doesn't affect whether dark chocolate reduces hunger or aids weight loss. Choice D about the timing of chocolate administration (two hours after breakfast) doesn't weaken the argument—it's simply describing the experimental conditions without suggesting any flaw.
Strategy tip: In Critical Reasoning questions that ask you to weaken an argument, look for answer choices that break the logical connection between the evidence and the conclusion. Often, the best answer reveals what the study didn't measure that would be necessary to support the conclusion.
- Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the economist's prediction?
Answer: Some businesses will respond to a higher minimum wage by cutting employee hours, leaving total income for many workers unchanged.
This question tests your ability to identify assumptions and find evidence that weakens a causal argument. The economist's reasoning follows a simple chain: higher minimum wage → more income for low-wage workers → increased consumer spending. To weaken this argument, you need to find something that breaks this causal chain.
Choice A directly attacks the first link in the chain. If businesses respond to higher minimum wages by cutting hours, then workers don't actually receive more total income despite the higher hourly rate. No additional income means no additional spending, completely undermining the economist's prediction. This is a classic example of unintended consequences that can occur when analyzing economic policies in isolation.
Choice B is irrelevant to the argument. Even if minimum-wage workers live with higher earners, they would still have more personal income to spend immediately, which supports rather than weakens the economist's point about spending behavior.
Choice C actually strengthens the argument by providing additional evidence that workers would indeed have more income (enough to generate higher tax revenues), supporting the economist's premise.
Choice D also strengthens the argument by extending the positive economic effects beyond what the economist claimed, showing additional benefits rather than calling the prediction into question.
When you encounter "weaken the argument" questions, look for answer choices that either challenge the underlying assumptions, provide alternative explanations, or show how the proposed cause might not lead to the predicted effect. The correct answer often reveals a gap in the original reasoning.
