This is a Weaken question, so we must understand (1) the author's Conclusion, and (2) the basis for that Conclusion (the specific Evidence).

THE ARGUMENT:

C: Ppl who are MORE "tc" than AVERAGE are MORE likely to be C.E.

E: C.E. tend to be "tc" (3 traits)

Notice the Concept Shift here from a TENDENCY among C.E. to this idea that ABOVE-AVERAGE "tc" = a higher LIKELIHOOD to be C.E.

Why should a TENDENCY be a specific CAUSE?

Always be on the look-out for conclusions that make causal claims!!! They are so common in CR!

Just because 2 things happen together ("tc" and "C.E." does not mean that "tc" CAUSES "C.E.")

The strongest way to weaken this is to show that being "tc" wouldn't lead to being a "C.E." Why couldn't people develop a "tc" personality on the job, for example?

Prediction: Anything that shows "tc" doesn't CAUSE a "C.E."? Perhaps "tc" develops after.

First pass (let's assign "-", "+", or "?" based on how well this matches the prediction)

A. +
B. - (we have no idea how many C.E. work on charity/community projects)
C. - (how many is "some"? It could literally be 2 people. If 2 people who are NOT executives are more "tc" than 2 people who are C.E it proves nothing.)
D. ? (just because people are different in current jobs doesn't necessarily mean they develop "tc" after becoming "C.E"'s. This is so-so.)
E. - ("family activities" is totally out of scope)

The final two are A and D, and the correct answer is clearly A.

A is correct because it FOCUSES precisely on the argument.

The argument makes a causal claim. (A) weakens that causal claim by showing that rather than X causing Y, Y causes X. This is very common GMAT CR logic.

This is from a post on GMATClub by Becky from PR that does a nice explanation:

Weakening Causal Arguments

In order to weaken this type of argument, the GMAT requires you to find a reason why the cause/effect relationship is not established. One way to do this is to establish that there was an alternate or intervening cause for the result. This type of correct answer is often difficult to spot because it brings in new information that does not seem connected to the argument. To weaken: show a break in the causal relationship the author wishes to establish.

Similarly, an answer choice that reverses the causal relationship will weaken the argument. An answer choice that gives a fact that shows that the relationship is the reverse of what the author concludes thus it weakens the argument. These types of answers can be easier to spot, but, unfortunately, they are a bit less common.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Vivian

j_shreyans wrote:A researcher studying corporate executives found that they tend to have "take charge" personalities, with the predominant traits of assertiveness, decisiveness, and self-confidence. The researcher concluded that people who are more "take charge" than the average person are more likely to become corporate executives.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the researcher's conclusion?

A)Holding the job of a corporate executive causes people to develop "take charge" personality traits.

B)When working on charitable or community projects, corporate executives often use their ability to make decisions and lead people to make those projects successful.

C)Some people who are not executives have stronger "take charge" personalities than some people who currently serve as corporate executives.

D)Many people who aspire to become executives exhibit different management styles in their current jobs.

E)The executives that the researcher studied were often unsuccessful when they tried to manage their family activities as they do their business activities.

This is a CAUSAL argument.
Causal arguments are about OBSERVATION.
Premise: Events A and B are observed together.
Conclusion: A causes B.

One way to weaken a causal argument is to REVERSE THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP:
To show that B CAUSES A.

Conclusion of the CR above:
Having a take-charge personality often leads to becoming a corporate executive.
One way to weaken this conclusion is to reverse the causal relationship:
To show that becoming a corporate executive often leads to developing a take-charge personality.
Answer choice A:
Holding the job of a corporate executive causes people to develop "take charge" personality traits.

The correct answer is A.

why not C , C also weakens the argument.

When answering a strengthen/weaken CR, avoid options that include the word SOME.
Some = AT LEAST ONE.
One exception is unlikely to have much impact upon the conclusion.
Answer choice C implies the following:
There is AT LEAST ONE non-executive known to have a stronger "take charge" personality than AT LEAST ONE corporate executive.
The existence of at least one exception does not weaken the conclusion that having a take-charge personality often leads to becoming a corporate executive.
Eliminate C.

Vivian and Mitch provide an excellent dissection of how causality arguments operate on the GMAT. Here's another good example: https://www.beatthegmat.com/black-plague ... tml#740206