Critical Reasoning

A- not relevant to the conclusion; out of scope- picking up litter on Monday is not an issue here
B- out of scope (vandalism is not discussed in the statement) + such statement can only strengthen the argument
D- not concrete; the conclusion does not refer to specific areas of the lake but to the entire lake
E- out of scope; nearby town are not an issue in the argument

IMO- C is the correct answer because if tourists litter on weekends, they would litter any weekend throughout the month

Why is A out of scope though? I understand why C is the better answer now, but not picking up trash leads to more trash in the streets?

A is out of scope in terms of the conclusion.

The architecture of the conclusion is as follows:

Rosco is tourist destination -----> tourists litter

A states that on Monday, volunteers pick up the garbage. This statement has nothing to do with the conclusion (littering v.s. picking up the garbage); and in 'weaken' questions you have to attack the conclusion i.e. to prove that it is wrong.

I hope this explanation helps.

While this is an easy question, I did want to call into question the 'wording' of answer choice C.

The argument that the mayor makes states that 'AFTER' the weekend , the trash was discovered.

Answer choice C claims that DURING the other weekends in July, there was no trash.


Wouldn't it be a correct exercise to place doubt on C because 'During' the weekend can also encapsulate that it may have been the beginning of the weekend rather than the end?

Trash-near lake-twicein weekend-by tourists?

Before going to ans, I was thinking:
1. What if local people were more in weekend?
2. What if tourist didnt come here at all?

Now, let us see ans choices:
A.not related. Pass it
B.not related. Pass it
C. Could be?
D. 2 sides compared..pass it
E. not related. pass it

So ans C?

IMO C!

C is my answer

C is the answer . Same Logic as other have already given.

(C)

straightforward ........C for me.

The answer has to be C.
pretty easy one i suppose.

Here is my approach:
Premise 1: Monday after 7/4, 2x trash in the street & parks.
Premise 2: Downtown Rosco Lake is a major tourist destination
Conclusion: tourist is the cause of trash
Question: called into question -> Tourist is not the cause of trash
(A) Time line: Trash on weekends - Volunteers go through on Monday -> nothing to deal with the cause of trash
(B) It actually supports the Conclusion
(C) It must be other reasons for the exceptional amount of trash on Forth of July weekend -> fit the Question
(D) It actually supports the Conclusion
(E) The control if it's put on everyone, not on Tourist only -> nothing to do with the Conclusion

Therefore, my answer is (C)

will go with C

A eliminated because volunteer picked up the trash on Monday, has nothing to do with trash over the weekend.
B eliminated because vandalism is not mentioned in the argument.
C Hold on
D Good comparison, but not tied to trash caused by tourist.
E It is more about the consequences of action, notices not The doubt of the issue.

C: it raises the question that tourist may showed Up other weekend, but there is no usual amount of trash. I got the hard time, I almost eliminated all.
Thanks guys

C is the correct answer.
This is because the argument is "Since the tourist come on weekends, on that particular weekend the place was not clean".

C questions the argument - "On other weekends (when tourists come) the place is clean. Then how come on that particular weekend it was dirty"