Critical Reasoning

In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

A. It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.

B. It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.

C. It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.

D. It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.

E. It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.
I understand the problem in the situation. Can someone explain the Choice D and E? I am not really sure the meanings of thes two sentences?
Thanks in advance

D. It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.

Translation: It says that something was caused by something else, but the cause actually happened after the supposed effect.

E. It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.

The argument makes a point based on the idea that it's own conclusion is correct. In other words, somehow the argument is based on its own conclusion. Here's a ridiculous example

Amanda has blond hair and blonds prefer apples to oranges. I know that because Amanda has blond hair. So she must prefer apples to oranges. So girls with blond hair must prefer apples to oranges.

Wait a minute!!! Goes in a circle to nowhere.

Marty Murray wrote:D. It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.

Translation: It says that something was caused by something else, but the cause actually happened after the supposed effect.

E. It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.

The argument makes a point based on the idea that it's own conclusion is correct. In other words, somehow the argument is based on its own conclusion. Here's a ridiculous example

Amanda has blond hair and blonds prefer apples to oranges. I know that because Amanda has blond hair. So she must prefer apples to oranges. So girls with blond hair must prefer apples to oranges.

Wait a minute!!! Goes in a circle to nowhere.

Thnk you for your reply but I am still confused especially for your example.

Crystal W wrote:

E. It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.

The argument makes a point based on the idea that it's own conclusion is correct. In other words, somehow the argument is based on its own conclusion. Here's a ridiculous example

Amanda has blond hair and blonds prefer apples to oranges. I know that because Amanda has blond hair. So she must prefer apples to oranges. So girls with blond hair must prefer apples to oranges.

Wait a minute!!! Goes in a circle to nowhere.

Thnk you for your reply but I am still confused especially for your example.[/quote]

D. It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.

Consider a cause effect situation. Generally the cause must happen before the effect occurs. For instance, first rain falls, and after that plants grow. First a person eats too much, then he feels sick.

So cause BEFORE effect.

D says that the argument attributes an effect to a cause that occurred AFTER the effect. An argument that does that does not make sense.

E. It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.

An argument has to support, via the premises, its conclusion. The conclusion is the point of the argument.

Consider this example.

John has to work late. So he will not make it to the event.

We only know that John will not make it to the event because John has to work late.

E says that the argument is flawed because somehow the conclusion is used to support part of the argument. That does not make sense.

Consider this ridiculous example of a conclusion supporting itself.

I know that John will be late, because John will be late.

What E says is not as simple as the above example, but E says that some distinction, something that the argument says, its supported by the conclusion. "presupposes the truth of the conclusion" means "decides that the conclusion is true before it is proven."

Here's an example.

I can tell that John does not drive as fast as Henry does, because people who drive faster arrive first. So John will not arrive first.

That argument does not make sense. The conclusion is "So John will not arrive first."

The conclusion supports the idea that John does not drive as fast as Henry does. The argument goes around in a circle, but does not prove anything.

The statement, "John does not drive as fast as Henry does," presupposes the truth of the conclusion, "John will not arrive first."

John will not arrive first, so John does not drive as fast, so John will not arrive first, so John does not drive as fast ...