Critical Reasoning

Sam is obviously a bad fisherman. During the past season, in which he and the five members of his team spent four months on a boat together off Dutch Harbor, AK, he caught fewer fish than any of his teammates.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?
A)Two seasons ago, Sam fished on another boat off Dutch Harbor and caught more fish than any other member of that boat.
B)Before becoming a fisherman, Sam piloted a fishing boat whose members regularly caught record numbers of fish.
C)While fishing this past season, Sam fell sick for a week and did not catch any fish during this time.
D)Unlike the other fishermen on his boat, at the order of the captain, Sam fished this past season with experimental bait.
E)Amongst the fishing community in Dutch Harbor, Sam has a reputation for being an especially bad fisherman.

OA D

Sam is obviously a bad fisherman because he caught less fish. We need to find an explanation which explains why he caught less fish and why he still can be a good fisherman.

Unlike the other fishermen on his boat, at the order of the captain, Sam fished this past season with experimental bait.

What if all other used WORMS and he used something that did not work..Does it make him a bad fisher ? NO! We still like Sam!

logitech wrote:Sam is obviously a bad fisherman because he caught less fish. We need to find an explanation which explains why he caught less fish and why he still can be a good fisherman.

Unlike the other fishermen on his boat, at the order of the captain, Sam fished this past season with experimental bait.

What if all other used WORMS and he used something that did not work..Does it make him a bad fisher ? NO! We still like Sam!

- well the only other option that threw me off was 'C' - that seemed like a possible one

acecoolan wrote:

logitech wrote:Sam is obviously a bad fisherman because he caught less fish. We need to find an explanation which explains why he caught less fish and why he still can be a good fisherman.

Unlike the other fishermen on his boat, at the order of the captain, Sam fished this past season with experimental bait.

What if all other used WORMS and he used something that did not work..Does it make him a bad fisher ? NO! We still like Sam!

- well the only other option that threw me off was 'C' - that seemed like a possible one

Option C contradicts the stimulus which says he caught fewer fish (atleast some, more than 0) than anyone else, this option says he didnt catch any.

I believe C is a better choice

C)While fishing this past season, Sam fell sick for a week and did not catch any fish during this time. < - If falling sick is a quality of Bad fisherman then only we can say that C proves that Sam is a bad fisherman.. which i don't think is the case..So i go for C.. as decision is based on number of fish caught...

D)Unlike the other fishermen on his boat, at the order of the captain, Sam fished this past season with experimental bait. <- This possibility should be wrong as it doesn't show what effect the experiment caused on number of fish caught... If number of fish caught using exp decreases then the exp fails .. SAm can still be good or bad fisherman..
If number of fishes caught increases then also the exp is successful... NOT that SAM is a good fisherman or a Bad fisherman...

So i go for C

C does not make him a better or worse fisherman. It is not tied to the conclusion.

I feel D doesn't make it a good or bad fisherman..

Let's see what other have to say...

IMO D

Conclusion: Sam is a bad fisherman

We need to negate this conclusion

What if there is not a level playing ground for Sam to compete...

Option D says that itself..

ronniecoleman wrote:IMO D

Conclusion: Sam is a bad fisherman

We need to negate this conclusion

What if there is not a level playing ground for Sam to compete...

Option D says that itself..

Can we say that sickness could have prevented level playing ground for Sam to compete..??

C vs D

C)While fishing this past season, Sam fell sick for a week and did not catch any fish during this time.
D)Unlike the other fishermen on his boat, at the order of the captain, Sam fished this past season with experimental bait.

C: one week in past season!
D: entire season



C: being sick does not make any body to qualify as a bad fisherman because he was not competing against others

D:fishing at the same time but catching less fish can mean a bad fisherman

C: There is no alternative explanation for the conclusion
D: There is an alternative explanation


C: WRONG
D: CORRECT

nervesofsteel wrote:I believe C is a better choice

C)While fishing this past season, Sam fell sick for a week and did not catch any fish during this time. < - If falling sick is a quality of Bad fisherman then only we can say that C proves that Sam is a bad fisherman.. which i don't think is the case..So i go for C.. as decision is based on number of fish caught...

D)Unlike the other fishermen on his boat, at the order of the captain, Sam fished this past season with experimental bait. <- This possibility should be wrong as it doesn't show what effect the experiment caused on number of fish caught... If number of fish caught using exp decreases then the exp fails .. SAm can still be good or bad fisherman..
If number of fishes caught increases then also the exp is successful... NOT that SAM is a good fisherman or a Bad fisherman...

So i go for C

C also says - past season .. so it's not irrelevant to the argument.

Option A is not bad either, because, If no. if caught fishes is criteria, In A , it is proved he caught more than any1 , so he is nto bad.
D - Experimental bait...it could it good also, why to think it was bad and he caught more than he would have with worms n all
C- Out of 4 months , he wasnt well for 7 days, he had 15 weeks beside that to prove if he good,

Why not A.

vivek.kapoor83 wrote:Option A is not bad either, because, If no. if caught fishes is criteria, In A , it is proved he caught more than any1 , so he is nto bad.
D - Experimental bait...it could it good also, why to think it was bad and he caught more than he would have with worms n all
C- Out of 4 months , he wasnt well for 7 days, he had 15 weeks beside that to prove if he good,

Why not A.

A)Two seasons ago, Sam fished on another boat off Dutch Harbor and caught more fish than any other member of that boat.

We are comparing his PAST Year performance with other fishermen.

2 seasons ago is not in the scope of our discussion. IMO!!

no, it talks abt him in genral and gernally he this option suits the most... IMO

A)Two seasons ago, Sam fished on another boat off Dutch Harbor and caught more fish than any other member of that boat.
..... out of scope as it was two seasons ago and also we don't know whether it is the same set of co-fishermen now and then.

B)Before becoming a fisherman, Sam piloted a fishing boat whose members regularly caught record numbers of fish.
..... who cares... may be Sam made a wrong career change decision.

C)While fishing this past season, Sam fell sick for a week and did not catch any fish during this time.
..... possible argument, but still not most weakening.

D)Unlike the other fishermen on his boat, at the order of the captain, Sam fished this past season with experimental bait.
..... correct !!!

E)Amongst the fishing community in Dutch Harbor, Sam has a reputation for being an especially bad fisherman.
..... this is strengthening the conclusion.