Responding to a PM. I agree with the OA...
P1: There is a proposal to add five firefighters to Danbury's volunteer fire department.
P2: The city wouldn't need to pay these additional volunteers.
P3: But the expense of outfitting the fire hall with enough firefighting equipment for five additional firefighters as well as current firefighters will put too much strain on Danbury's budget.
C1: The proposal to add five firefighters to Danbury's volunteer fire department is not well-reasoned.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion of the above argument?
(A) "Firefighters who are not provided with up-to-date equipment are noticeably less effective than firefighters who have such equipment." Incorrect. This answer strengthens the argument. This answer implies that the new firefighters will need "up-to-date equipment" if they are to perform well. According to the passage, outfitting the fire hall with enough firefighting equipment for five additional firefighters will put too much strain on Danbury's budget.
(B) "After reaching a peak a decade ago, the cost of firefighting equipment has steadily decreased." Incorrect. This answer has no effect on the conclusion. Even if the cost of firefighting equipment is steadily decreasing it may still be high enough to strain Danbury's budget.
(C) "Any additional firefighters hired by Danbury would be assigned to work at times when the fire hall is severely understaffed." Correct. The conclusion is based on the premise that "the expense of outfitting the fire hall with enough firefighting equipment for five additional firefighters as well as current firefighters will put too much strain on Danbury's budget."
This premise implies that the expense to purchase enough equipment for all the current firefighters plus five more will put too much strain on Danbury's budget. You would only need all this equipment if all the firefighters are working at the same time. If the additional firefighters are assigned to work at times when the fire hall is severely understaffed they can use the equipment that is already there (helmets, oxygen tanks, axes, etc.) and the town would not need to purchase as much additional equipment. This weakens the conclusion by weakening the main criticism (budget strain) of the proposal.
NOTE: The fact that the additional firefighters would be assigned to work at times when the fire hall is severely understaffed does not strengthen the conclusion. You cannot interpret this answer choice to mean that because of the understaffing the additional firefighters will be working in conditions where they cannot perform their job effectively.
We don't know what "severely understaffed" means. It could mean that the fire department has enough support staff but is short a few firefighters. In this case adding volunteer firefighters is just what the town needs.
(D) "Yearly funding for Danbury's school lunch program is more than the cost of equipping Danbury's fire hall to accommodate the new firefighters." Incorrect. This answer does not directly address the argument. The basis for the author's conclusion is that the cost to equip Danbury's fire hall to accommodate the new firefighters is significant enough to put too much strain on Danbury's budget.
The fact that the school lunch program receives more funding than the cost of equipping the fire hall does not provide us with any usable information. The fact that the cost of the school lunch program is greater than the cost to equip the fire hall does not mean that the cost to equip the fire hall is insignificant. The cost to equip the fire hall may still be large enough to strain the budget.
(E) "In many cases, adding new firefighters to a town's fire department has not appreciably decreased the value of property destroyed by fire each year in the town." Incorrect. This answer shifts the focus of the argument. The conclusion is that the proposal is not well reasoned. The basis for this conclusion is that the cost to equip the fire hall will put too much strain on Danbury's budget.
The wording in this answer choice is a little difficult to follow. This answer states that adding new firefighters to a town's fire department does not appreciably decrease the value of property destroyed by fire each year in the town. This means that the amount of property damage caused by fire is roughly the same regardless if a town adds more firefighters. This implies that adding new firefighters is not effective.
The fact that additional firefighters are not effective would strengthen the conclusion that the proposal is not well-reasoned. However, since the purpose of firefighters is mainly to protect people and not property, you could argue that the amount of property damage caused by fire is irrelevant in determining the effectiveness of additional firefighters. If additional firefighters save more people then they can be considered effective regardless of the amount of property damage they prevent.
This answer either strengthens the conclusion or it is irrelevant. In any case this answer is wrong.
