CR's scope ques.

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 32
Joined: 26 May 2010
Followed by:1 members

CR's scope ques.

by sarwan » Fri Jun 04, 2010 7:07 am
Please explain me why D is correct answer : Even it is out of scope becouse> how it has been considered that captain of the boat has ordered to Samuel, this argument is not considered of other person i.e. Captain.

CR Q: Samuel is obviously a bad fisherman. During the past season, in which he and the five members of his team spent four months on a boat together off Dutch Harbor, AK, he caught fewer fish than any of his teammates.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?
A) Two seasons ago, Samuel fished on another boat off Dutch Harbor and caught more fish than any other member of that boat.
B) Before becoming a fisherman, Samuel piloted a fishing boat whose members regularly caught record numbers of fish.
C) While fishing this past season, Samuel fell sick for a week and did not catch any fish during this time.
D) Unlike the other fishermen on his boat, at the order of the captain, Samuel fished this past season with experimental bait.
E) Amongst the fishing community in Dutch Harbor, Samuel has a reputation for being an especially bad fisherman.


Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: 13 Oct 2009
Thanked: 3 times

by boazkhan » Fri Jun 04, 2010 8:55 am
Hi Sarwan,
D gives us an explanation as to why samuel caught fewer fish than this teammates did...What would you have picked otherwise?

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 268
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Thanked: 17 times

by this_time_i_will » Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:00 am
The conclusion is: Samuel is a bad fisherman because he caught least number of fish.

Any option that provides a reason for Samuel catching less number of fish would weaken the assumption that Samuel is a bad fisherman. This is because a reason would not lead to doubt Samuel's skill.

D does precisely that. D provides a reason that led Samuel to catch less number of fish.

Legendary Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Thanked: 104 times
Followed by:1 members

by scoobydooby » Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:13 am
Conclusion:Samuel is a bad fisherman. we need to weaken the conclusion ie, he is not a bad fisherman

D shows an alternate cause for his bad performance. He had to use an experimental bait at the order of the captain. the bait may not have been effective and it caused the bad performance. so Samuel may not be a bad fisherman, it was because of the ineffective/faulty bait that he had the least haul. weakens

A. out of scope. talks of two seasons ago. the passage is concerned with the past season performance
B. out of scope. the passage is concerned with Samuel's performance as a fisherman, the past season
C. explains one weeks performance in the whole past season. he might still have been a bad fisherman. doesnt weaken
E. reputation is out of scope