To weaken the argument, first determine what the conclusion of the argument is.

The conclusion is that "the proposal is pointless." One way to weaken the argument is to show that the proposed course of action would generate benefits.

(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage
are equally harmful to lobsters.

This is a classic trap answer, in that it tends to weaken the argument for the proposal rather than weakening the argument that the proposal is pointless. If you just look for CR answers that "sound right" you might get smoked by one like this one.

(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in
the open ocean than in industrial harbors.

This does not weaken the conclusion that the proposal is pointless, and it too might trap you in that it tends to make the proposal seem pointless.

(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage contaminated
water as in unpolluted water.

This one does not indicate that the proposed course of action would generate benefits.

(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining
the surface of the lobster.

This one is out of scope. The argument is about a proposal to reduce the diseases not whether the diseases can be detected.

(E) Humans often become ill as a result of eating
lobsters with gill diseases

While the argument is that the proposal is pointless because the lobsters don't live long enough to be harmed, this shows that actually the proposal is not pointless because, even if would not reduce harm to lobsters, the proposed course of action would benefit humans. So this weakens the conclusion.

The correct answer is E.

Marty Murray wrote:To weaken the argument, first determine what the conclusion of the argument is.

The conclusion is that "the proposal is pointless." One way to weaken the argument is to show that the proposed course of action would generate benefits.

(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage
are equally harmful to lobsters.

This is a classic trap answer, in that it tends to weaken the argument for the proposal rather than weakening the argument that the proposal is pointless. If you just look for CR answers that "sound right" you might get smoked by one like this one.

(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in
the open ocean than in industrial harbors.

This does not weaken the conclusion that the proposal is pointless, and it too might trap you in that it tends to make the proposal seem pointless.

(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage contaminated
water as in unpolluted water.

This one does not indicate that the proposed course of action would generate benefits.

(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining
the surface of the lobster.

This one is out of scope. The argument is about a proposal to reduce the diseases not whether the diseases can be detected.

(E) Humans often become ill as a result of eating
lobsters with gill diseases

While the argument is that the proposal is pointless because the lobsters don't live long enough to be harmed, this shows that actually the proposal is not pointless because, even if would not reduce harm to lobsters, the proposed course of action would benefit humans. So this weakens the conclusion.

The correct answer is E.

I still didn't get how E.

Plan is "millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore."

Goal is to reduce this "Lobsters and other crustaceans are contracted gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water"

Conclusion says PLAN IS POINTLESS AND WON'T WORK.

To weaken this "PLAN IS NOT POINTLESS IT MIGHT HAVE SOME OTHER BENEFIT".

BUT YOU SAID "even if would not reduce harm to lobsters, the proposed course of action would benefit humans."

how it will benefit to human if the plan doesn't reduce the gill diseases among Lobsters and other crustaceans??


Can you please explain?

vishalwin wrote:BUT YOU SAID "even if would not reduce harm to lobsters, the proposed course of action would benefit humans."

how it will benefit to human if the plan doesn't reduce the gill diseases among Lobsters and other crustaceans??

Can you please explain?

Under the proposal, "millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore," in other words, very far from "the harbor where lobsters are caught".

In order to be eaten, a lobster has to be caught, and it stands to reason that if the sewage goes somewhere "many kilometers" from where the lobsters are caught the lobsters that will be caught will not have been affected by the sewage. So the caught and eaten lobsters will not be diseased in the particular way that lobsters are when there is sewage present, and humans will benefit, because they will not be eating diseased lobster.

According to the argument, the disease does not harm lobsters. So my point is that even if you agree that sewage caused disease does not harm lobsters, the proposal may still not be pointless if it helps humans.