If an argument contains 2 conclusion indicators?

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:29 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:1 members
For eg, below question - I am confused if the OA should be C - which weakens the 1st conclusion or if its or A, which weakens the 2nd conclusion.

Court records from medieval France show that in the years 1300 to 1400 the number of people arrested in the French realm for "violent interpersonal crimes" (not committed in wars) increased by 30 percent over the number of people arrested for such crimes in the years 1200 to 1300. The increase was not the result of false arrests; therefore, medieval France had a higher level of documented interpersonal violence in the years 1300 to 1400 than in the years 1200 to 1300.

Which one of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) In the years 1300 to 1400 the French government's category of violent crimes
included an increasing variety of interpersonal crimes that are actually nonviolent.
(B) Historical accounts by monastic chroniclers in the years 1300 to 1400 are filled with descriptions of violent attacks committed by people living in the French realm
(C) The number of individual agreements between two people in which they swore oaths not to attack each other increased substantially after 1300.
(D) When English armies tried to conquer parts of France in the mid- to late 1300s. violence in the northern province of Normandy and the south-western province of Gascony increased.
(E) The population of medical France increased substantially during the first five decades of the 1300s until the deadly bubonic plague decimated the population of France after 1348.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:29 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:1 members

by crimson2283 » Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:21 am
Can somebody please take a look at this?

Legendary Member
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:46 am
Thanked: 21 times
Followed by:7 members

by GMATMadeEasy » Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:54 am
There is only one conclusion.
therefore, medieval France had a higher level of documented interpersonal violence in the years 1300 to 1400 than in the years 1200 to 1300.
Looks you are convinced about C if this is the conclusion. C weakens the argumeny by explaining that it is not higher level of interpersonal violence BETWEEN 1300 and 1400 but the change in definition of interpesnoal violence during this century .

This is premise,a fact.
the years 1300 to 1400 the number of people arrested in the French realm for "violent interpersonal crimes" (not committed in wars) increased by 30 percent over the number of people arrested for such crimes in the years 1200 to 1300.

Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:17 pm
I Seek Explanations Not Answers

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:51 pm
Thanked: 62 times
Followed by:5 members
GMAT Score:750

by fitzgerald23 » Wed Feb 09, 2011 2:56 pm
Dont get too thrown off by "signal words" that people may tell you marks a conclusion. The first part of this is by no means a conclusion. It is a presentation of fact. Court records show that people arrested in 1300 to 1400 was more than in 1100 and 1200 and it was not due to false arrests. He concludes, from that information, that they had a higher level of documented violence in the 1300s and 1400s. That is what you have to weaken.