Critical Reasoning

vineetbatra wrote:The recent decline in the employment rate was spurred by predictions of slow economic growth in the coming year. However, those predictions would not have affected the employment rate if it had not been for the lack of capital reserves of major industries. So if major industries increase their capital reserves, the employment rate will not decline in the future.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the validity of the argument above?

a. Major industry foresaw the drop in employment.
b. Some major industries had appreciable capital reserves.
c. An increase in labor costs could adversely affect the employment rate.
d. The government could pass legislation mandating that major industries set aside a fixed amount as capital reserves every year.
This seems like a straightforward question, but the answer is twisted OA is C. My choice is B.

Can someone explain why it is what it is.

deepak115 wrote:The Conclusion is "if major industries increase their capital reserves, the employment rate will not decline in the future."

Based on Premise "However, those predictions would not have affected the employment rate if it had not been for the lack of capital reserves of major industries."

To casts doubt on the validity of the argument:
Attack the conclusion or the premise, which choice C does best by attacking the premise !

vineetbatra wrote:
How is choice C attacking the premise, Premise has nothing to do with the cost of labor, it is more close to attacking the conclusion. I just can't seem to figure out this question

ogbeni wrote:

vineetbatra wrote:

When you try to weaken a question with cause and effect logic, isolate the cause and effect which in this argument goes:
1. Prediction of slow economic growth --> Decline in Employment Rate
2. Lack of Capital --> Prediction of slow economic growth
3. Conclusion, If companies have capital --> No prediction of slow economic growth --> No decline in employment rate.

To weaken a cause and effect, all you have to do is find an alternate cause that would result in the effect. Don't dwell too much on whether it makes sense and other posters have already pointed out that C is an alternate cause. Note that alternate cause does not have to attack the premise, it just has to weaken it by demonstrating that the cause-->effect relationship is the stimulus is not the only possibility - I think that is where you have a problem with the explanations provided.

This makes a lot more sense, thanks for clearin it out. So just to make sure that we seek new information in a Weaken question only when there is Casue and Effect relationship?

Thanks,

Vineet