This is question #67 in OG 11. (Please cite your sources).
It's important to note that
"each of the following weakens EXCEPT" does NOT mean "which one of the following strengthens." With WEAKEN EXCEPT questions,
it's more likely that you'll have 4 weaken + 1 irrelevant than 4 weaken + 1 strengthen.
When you want to WEAKEN an argument, do not try to attack the conclusion directly. Instead,
identify the MISSING pieces (the assumptions) that would be needed to connect the premise to the conclusion.
Premise: A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T.
Conclusion: citizens of Town S are better informed about major world events than are the citizens of Town T.
What's missing? What else would HAVE to be true for that conclusion to follow from that premise?
- - does NUMBER of newspapers directly correlate to number of people reading them? What if people share newspapers with multiple people? Or buy more than one per person?
- and does number of newspapers correlate to PERCENTAGE of citizens being informed? What if town S has more people? The same percentage of people buying newspapers would = a greater number.
- are people actually reading the newspapers and absorbing the information? The fact that they're sold doesn't necessarily correlate to people getting the information.
- do newspapers contain world events? The premise didn't say so. And if so, are people reading that part?
- are newspapers being read by citizens of town S? They're being purchased there, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're read there.
- are newspapers the only source of information about world events? What about tv, radio, etc?
In order to weaken the argument, we want to
attack one of these missing assumptions.
(A) Town S has a larger population than Town T.
This attacks the assumption that number of newspapers is correlated with percentage of citizens informed. Larger population à a smaller percentage of citizens could buy newspapers but it could still be a greater number. This weakens.
(B) Most citizens of Town T work in Town S and buy their newspapers there.
This attacks the assumption that where a newspaper is bought = which citizens are informed. It's possible that newspapers sold in town S are informing citizens of town T, so the premise no longer leads to the conclusion. This weakens.
(C) The average citizen of Town S spends less time reading newspapers than does the average citizen of Town T.
This attacks the assumption that the fact that a newspaper was purchased gives us information about whether the reader is informed. Less time reading might mean less well informed. This weakens.
(D) A weekly newspaper restricted to the coverage of local events is published in Town S.
This attacks the assumption that newspapers always inform citizens about world events. It may be the case that many people bought this local-only newspaper, so we cannot conclude that more newspapers = better informed about the world. This weakens.
(E) The average newsstand price of newspapers sold in Town S is lower than the average price of newspapers sold in Town T.
This doesn't attack any of the assumptions that would have to be true for the conclusion to hold. It perhaps explains WHY more newspapers were sold in town S but doesn't give us any reason to doubt that more newspapers sold = citizens better informed. This is irrelevant.
The answer is
E.
For more practice with WEAKEN EXCEPT, see:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/cr-support- ... tml#550195Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
