The key in this problem is to consider some flaw with the trend that the sociologist cites. In other words, what might indicate that the trend will not continue? Consider the following scenario: 10 years ago, most women who would normally have married at 22 start waiting to get married until they are forty. Over the next twenty years, the marriage rate would go down dramatically because women are waiting to get married (and the average marriage age is going up). However, when they do decide to get married, the rate will go back up again. If this were true it would show a huge flaw in the sociologist’s reasoning so "The average age of marriage has increased dramatically in the past 20 years." is correct. For "Today’s divorce rates are expected to rise dramatically over the next 40 years." and "More women are expected to get married for a second and third time in the next 40 years." divorce rates and second/third time marriages are unimportant because the argument is only about first time marriages. "Many women are deciding to simply live with their partners rather than get married." and "Marriage is much less likely to occur today for the first time than it was in the 1960’s." would not indicate a flaw as they both seem to support the sociologist (that is the trend that marriage is disappearing). Answer is "The average age of marriage has increased dramatically in the past 20 years."

The key in this problem is to consider some flaw with the trend that the sociologist cites. In other words, what might indicate that the trend will not continue? Consider the following scenario: 10 years ago, most women who would normally have married at 22 start waiting to get married until they are forty. Over the next twenty years, the marriage rate would go down dramatically because women are waiting to get married (and the average marriage age is going up). However, when they do decide to get married, the rate will go back up again. If this were true it would show a huge flaw in the sociologist’s reasoning so "The average age of marriage has increased dramatically in the past 20 years." is correct. For "Today’s divorce rates are expected to rise dramatically over the next 40 years." and "More women are expected to get married for a second and third time in the next 40 years." divorce rates and second/third time marriages are unimportant because the argument is only about first time marriages. "Many women are deciding to simply live with their partners rather than get married." and "Marriage is much less likely to occur today for the first time than it was in the 1960’s." would not indicate a flaw as they both seem to support the sociologist (that is the trend that marriage is disappearing). Answer is "The average age of marriage has increased dramatically in the past 20 years."

The key in this problem is to consider some flaw with the trend that the sociologist cites. In other words, what might indicate that the trend will not continue? Consider the following scenario: 10 years ago, most women who would normally have married at 22 start waiting to get married until they are forty. Over the next twenty years, the marriage rate would go down dramatically because women are waiting to get married (and the average marriage age is going up). However, when they do decide to get married, the rate will go back up again. If this were true it would show a huge flaw in the sociologist’s reasoning so "The average age of marriage has increased dramatically in the past 20 years." is correct. For "Today’s divorce rates are expected to rise dramatically over the next 40 years." and "More women are expected to get married for a second and third time in the next 40 years." divorce rates and second/third time marriages are unimportant because the argument is only about first time marriages. "Many women are deciding to simply live with their partners rather than get married." and "Marriage is much less likely to occur today for the first time than it was in the 1960’s." would not indicate a flaw as they both seem to support the sociologist (that is the trend that marriage is disappearing). Answer is "The average age of marriage has increased dramatically in the past 20 years."

This is a Weaken question, due to the phrase, “which of the following…indicates the plan…is ill-suited.” However, unlike other Weaken questions that focus on arguments containing premises and conclusions, this problem focuses on the steps and goals of a particular plan. Thus, instead of zeroing in on a conclusion (as we normally would if attempting to weaken a traditional argument), we pay special attention to the goal of the plan. The correct answer will show that the proposed solution would not meet the predefined goals. The primary goal of the environmental groups is found in the very first sentence of the question: they want to “protect the environment”. To reach this goal, their plan is to keep a decommissioned oil platform from sinking. Naturally, any answer choice that shows the plan does not “protect the environment” could potentially weaken the efficacy of the solution.

Answer choice “The National Environmental Research Council approved the sinking of the oil platform, calling it the “best practicable environmental option.”” uses a fairly common trick of the Testmaker: luring test takers into accepting an “expert opinion” when the evaluatory criteria used by the expert are not explicitly stated. While the expert (in this case, the National Environmental Research Council) may give an official statement, this does not mean that the expert has the same goals or motives as the environmental groups have. “The best practicable environmental option” may or may not protect the environment. Answer choice “The National Environmental Research Council approved the sinking of the oil platform, calling it the “best practicable environmental option.”” does not necessarily weaken the plan.

Answer choice “Dismantling the oil platform on land would cost over 70 million dollars, compared to the $7.5 million needed to secure and sink it in a deep ocean location.” is a misdirection answer. Here the Testmaker introduces different criteria than those used by the environmental groups (in this case, the cost of different options.) As compelling as saving millions of dollars may be, the goal of the environmental groups is to “protect the environment” not “save money”. Our goal is to undermine the efficacy of the proposed plan in meeting the proposed goal; whether the plan saves money is irrelevant.

Answer choice “The release of 53 tons of toxic material into the ocean is very little compared to the volume of very highly toxic materials released by deep sea volcanoes.” is also a misdirection answer. It tries to get novice test takers to focus on other sources of toxic materials irrelevant to the goals of the proposed plan: environmentalists could still protect the environment from the toxic materials released by sinking the oil platform, regardless of the amount of chemicals released by natural phenomena.

(Now, if they could somehow plug an undersea volcano by sinking the oil platform, that would be another story entirely; however, such a possibility is not mentioned here!)

Answer choice “Towing the oil platform into shallow waters poses a massive risk that it may break up on its way to land, releasing the contained pollutants into fragile coastal waters.” shows us how the potential effects of the environmentalists’ plan could actually pose a greater risk to the environment, thus undermining the environmentalists’ goal of “protecting the environment”. Answer choice “Towing the oil platform into shallow waters poses a massive risk that it may break up on its way to land, releasing the contained pollutants into fragile coastal waters.” weakens the plan.

Answer choice “The sinking of the platform is fully in line with internationally approved guidelines for the disposal of off shore installations at sea.” is another variation on the “expert opinion” trap used by the Testmaker. Even if the disposal process were “internationally approved” (implying the “okay” of some governing body), this could still come in conflict with the environmentalists’ goals.

This is a Weaken question, due to the phrase, “which of the following…indicates the plan…is ill-suited.” However, unlike other Weaken questions that focus on arguments containing premises and conclusions, this problem focuses on the steps and goals of a particular plan. Thus, instead of zeroing in on a conclusion (as we normally would if attempting to weaken a traditional argument), we pay special attention to the goal of the plan. The correct answer will show that the proposed solution would not meet the predefined goals. The primary goal of the environmental groups is found in the very first sentence of the question: they want to “protect the environment”. To reach this goal, their plan is to keep a decommissioned oil platform from sinking. Naturally, any answer choice that shows the plan does not “protect the environment” could potentially weaken the efficacy of the solution.

Answer choice “The National Environmental Research Council approved the sinking of the oil platform, calling it the “best practicable environmental option.”” uses a fairly common trick of the Testmaker: luring test takers into accepting an “expert opinion” when the evaluatory criteria used by the expert are not explicitly stated. While the expert (in this case, the National Environmental Research Council) may give an official statement, this does not mean that the expert has the same goals or motives as the environmental groups have. “The best practicable environmental option” may or may not protect the environment. Answer choice “The National Environmental Research Council approved the sinking of the oil platform, calling it the “best practicable environmental option.”” does not necessarily weaken the plan.

Answer choice “Dismantling the oil platform on land would cost over 70 million dollars, compared to the $7.5 million needed to secure and sink it in a deep ocean location.” is a misdirection answer. Here the Testmaker introduces different criteria than those used by the environmental groups (in this case, the cost of different options.) As compelling as saving millions of dollars may be, the goal of the environmental groups is to “protect the environment” not “save money”. Our goal is to undermine the efficacy of the proposed plan in meeting the proposed goal; whether the plan saves money is irrelevant.

Answer choice “The release of 53 tons of toxic material into the ocean is very little compared to the volume of very highly toxic materials released by deep sea volcanoes.” is also a misdirection answer. It tries to get novice test takers to focus on other sources of toxic materials irrelevant to the goals of the proposed plan: environmentalists could still protect the environment from the toxic materials released by sinking the oil platform, regardless of the amount of chemicals released by natural phenomena.

(Now, if they could somehow plug an undersea volcano by sinking the oil platform, that would be another story entirely; however, such a possibility is not mentioned here!)

Answer choice “Towing the oil platform into shallow waters poses a massive risk that it may break up on its way to land, releasing the contained pollutants into fragile coastal waters.” shows us how the potential effects of the environmentalists’ plan could actually pose a greater risk to the environment, thus undermining the environmentalists’ goal of “protecting the environment”. Answer choice “Towing the oil platform into shallow waters poses a massive risk that it may break up on its way to land, releasing the contained pollutants into fragile coastal waters.” weakens the plan.

Answer choice “The sinking of the platform is fully in line with internationally approved guidelines for the disposal of off shore installations at sea.” is another variation on the “expert opinion” trap used by the Testmaker. Even if the disposal process were “internationally approved” (implying the “okay” of some governing body), this could still come in conflict with the environmentalists’ goals.

The advertisement's claim, that Coma Cola is the best tasting cola, is based on 99% percent of cola consumers choosing it over soda water. The flaw in the experimental setup is that just because a consumer chooses Coma Cola over soda water, it does not mean that she will choose Coma Cola over any other cola, let alone over all other colas.

The correct answer recognizes that, in order to validly make such a claim, one would have to show a preference for Coma Cola over other colas, not over soda water (or even over other flavored soft drinks, as one of the incorrect answer choices indicates).

The advertisement's claim, that Coma Cola is the best tasting cola, is based on 99% percent of cola consumers choosing it over soda water. The flaw in the experimental setup is that just because a consumer chooses Coma Cola over soda water, it does not mean that she will choose Coma Cola over any other cola, let alone over all other colas.

The correct answer recognizes that, in order to validly make such a claim, one would have to show a preference for Coma Cola over other colas, not over soda water (or even over other flavored soft drinks, as one of the incorrect answer choices indicates).

This is a Weaken question, due to the phrase, “which of the following…indicates the plan…is ill-suited.” However, unlike other Weaken questions that focus on arguments containing premises and conclusions, this problem focuses on the steps and goals of a particular plan. Thus, instead of zeroing in on a conclusion (as we normally would if attempting to weaken a traditional argument), we pay special attention to the goal of the plan. The correct answer will show that the proposed solution would not meet the predefined goals. The primary goal of the environmental groups is found in the very first sentence of the question: they want to “protect the environment”. To reach this goal, their plan is to keep a decommissioned oil platform from sinking. Naturally, any answer choice that shows the plan does not “protect the environment” could potentially weaken the efficacy of the solution.

Answer choice “The National Environmental Research Council approved the sinking of the oil platform, calling it the “best practicable environmental option.”” uses a fairly common trick of the Testmaker: luring test takers into accepting an “expert opinion” when the evaluatory criteria used by the expert are not explicitly stated. While the expert (in this case, the National Environmental Research Council) may give an official statement, this does not mean that the expert has the same goals or motives as the environmental groups have. “The best practicable environmental option” may or may not protect the environment. Answer choice “The National Environmental Research Council approved the sinking of the oil platform, calling it the “best practicable environmental option.”” does not necessarily weaken the plan.

Answer choice “Dismantling the oil platform on land would cost over 70 million dollars, compared to the $7.5 million needed to secure and sink it in a deep ocean location.” is a misdirection answer. Here the Testmaker introduces different criteria than those used by the environmental groups (in this case, the cost of different options.) As compelling as saving millions of dollars may be, the goal of the environmental groups is to “protect the environment” not “save money”. Our goal is to undermine the efficacy of the proposed plan in meeting the proposed goal; whether the plan saves money is irrelevant.

Answer choice “The release of 53 tons of toxic material into the ocean is very little compared to the volume of very highly toxic materials released by deep sea volcanoes.” is also a misdirection answer. It tries to get novice test takers to focus on other sources of toxic materials irrelevant to the goals of the proposed plan: environmentalists could still protect the environment from the toxic materials released by sinking the oil platform, regardless of the amount of chemicals released by natural phenomena.

(Now, if they could somehow plug an undersea volcano by sinking the oil platform, that would be another story entirely; however, such a possibility is not mentioned here!)

Answer choice “Towing the oil platform into shallow waters poses a massive risk that it may break up on its way to land, releasing the contained pollutants into fragile coastal waters.” shows us how the potential effects of the environmentalists’ plan could actually pose a greater risk to the environment, thus undermining the environmentalists’ goal of “protecting the environment”. Answer choice “Towing the oil platform into shallow waters poses a massive risk that it may break up on its way to land, releasing the contained pollutants into fragile coastal waters.” weakens the plan.

Answer choice “The sinking of the platform is fully in line with internationally approved guidelines for the disposal of off shore installations at sea.” is another variation on the “expert opinion” trap used by the Testmaker. Even if the disposal process were “internationally approved” (implying the “okay” of some governing body), this could still come in conflict with the environmentalists’ goals.

In these “Weaken the Plan” questions, your job is to find a reason that the plan will not work. And "The train line taken by most Plymouth Soccer Club spectators to the stadium arrives every four hours starting at 11:30am." supplies one – if most people cannot arrive before 11:30am, they won’t be able to respond to the new promotion of events before a noon game. Choice "The neighboring Canton Soccer Club has found that the best way to incent spectators to arrive early is to discount all concessions up to an hour before kickoff."is incorrect in that the potential existence of a better plan doesn’t necessarily mean that this plan will not work. Similarly choice "The children’s exhibitions will likely tear up the turf before the premier match begins, resulting in a lower-quality playing surface for the main event." is out of scope – the field quality is irrelevant as to whether the plan will reach its objective of reducing congestion near game time. Choices "Some fans of the Plymouth Soccer Club must travel for several hours to attend matches at the stadium." and "Because of its original design, the stadium used by Plymouth Soccer Club has fewer entryways than any other stadium in the surrounding area.", similarly, do not hinder the plan’s chance of reaching its objective.

As you deconstruct this argument, you should notice a classic case of mistaking correlation (two things occur together) for causation (one causes the other). Here you're told that people who exercise regularly have a lower incidence of respiratory illness, and then the conclusion is that regular exercise helps prevent respiratory illness.

But why can't that be the other way around? Whenever a question is structured as "X and Y happen together, so X likely causes Y" you should be on the lookout for an answer choice that suggests that, actually, Y is the thing that causes X.

Answer choice "People with respiratory illnesses are generally told by doctors that they must limit or cease their aerobic exercise routines." here supplies exactly that: if people who have respiratory illness are unable to exercise, that's a possible reason for the statistics (exercise and respiratory health occur together) to be true. So by providing an alternate explanation for the premises, "People with respiratory illnesses are generally told by doctors that they must limit or cease their aerobic exercise routines." shows that the conclusion is not necessarily true. "People with respiratory illnesses are generally told by doctors that they must limit or cease their aerobic exercise routines." is correct.

"Some respiratory illnesses are hereditary and therefore minimally affected by lifestyle choices." is incorrect because the conclusion is so soft, that exercise "can be helpful in preventing" respiratory illness. Even if some respiratory illnesses cannot be prevented, choice "Some respiratory illnesses are hereditary and therefore minimally affected by lifestyle choices." does not prohibit exercise from preventing other respiratory illnesses. Note also that "Some respiratory illnesses are hereditary and therefore minimally affected by lifestyle choices." says that the hereditary respiratory illnesses are minimally affected by lifestyle choices. "Minimally affected" still allows for lifestyle choices to have an impact, which is consistent with "can be helpful" in preventing these illnesses.

"The amount of air pollution, a common cause of respiratory illness, has increased dramatically since the 1950s." and "The lengths of the average workday and commute have increased markedly since the 1950s, leaving the average person with less time for aerobic exercise." are wrong for similar reasons: they are each overruled by the facts, which state that exercise and a lack of respiratory illness have remained correlated over time, even if respiratory illness is increasing due to pollution "The amount of air pollution, a common cause of respiratory illness, has increased dramatically since the 1950s." or people in general are exercising less "The lengths of the average workday and commute have increased markedly since the 1950s, leaving the average person with less time for aerobic exercise.". You still have facts from the argument that those who do find time to exercise have less respiratory illness than those who do not, so "The amount of air pollution, a common cause of respiratory illness, has increased dramatically since the 1950s." and "The lengths of the average workday and commute have increased markedly since the 1950s, leaving the average person with less time for aerobic exercise." are countered by the given information.

"Recent studies have debunked the conventional wisdom that aerobic exercise is an effective preventer of heart disease." misses the specific scope of the conclusion, which is only about respiratory illness. The fact that exercise doesn't prevent heart disease doesn't factor in to a discussion about respiratory issues. Because heart issues and respiratory issues are two completely different categories, "Recent studies have debunked the conventional wisdom that aerobic exercise is an effective preventer of heart disease." does not directly address the conclusion about respiratory issues.