Critical Reasoning

It is important for children, who are the leaders of the future, to know how the government of their country works.
Therefore children should be taught the history of their country and how its government was formed.

which of the following if true weaken the argument.

1) Everyone who knows how the government works knows how its government was formed.
2) some people who know how a country's government works don't know how its government was formed.
3) Most people who know how a country's government was formed know how its government work.
4) --
5) --

[spoiler]Source Kaplan test-3
Please explain your choices.[/spoiler]

paes wrote:It is important for children, who are the leaders of the future, to know how the government of their country works.
Therefore children should be taught the history of their country and how its government was formed.

which of the following if true weaken the argument.

1) Everyone who knows how the government works knows how its government was formed.
2) some people who know how a country's government works don't know how its government was formed.
3) Most people who know how a country's government was formed know how its government work.
4) --
5) --

[spoiler]Source Kaplan test-3
Please explain your choices.[/spoiler]

hmhmhm why didnt you post 4 and 5th choice?
2 seems to strengthen the argument
i dont like most, most doesnt mean all
i would choose A

It was taking typing effort so I didn't put D and E.
Also D and E were clearly out.

evidence:-imp for children, leaders of future should know how goverment works

assumptions:-if anybody knows how government formed than he will know how it works

conclusion:- taught history to know how government is formed

Everyone who knows how the government works knows how its government was formed so need not to teach history to know how government is formed once they know how it works
this weaken the argument

this is option A

i hope it helps

Some more thoughts guys.
I will put the OA later.

paes i dont think more discussion is required if somebody/you is not convinced me than please respond

paes wrote:It is important for children, who are the leaders of the future, to know how the government of their country works.
Therefore children should be taught the history of their country and how its government was formed.

which of the following if true weaken the argument.

1) Everyone who knows how the government works knows how its government was formed.
2) some people who know how a country's government works don't know how its government was formed.
3) Most people who know how a country's government was formed know how its government work.
4) --
5) --

[spoiler]Source Kaplan test-3
Please explain your choices.[/spoiler]

I will go with B.

It looks like a loose causal relation .

Knowledge of govt formation (X) --> knowledge of govt working (Y)
Option 1 states this causal realtionship only or to an be more general, states a correlation.
Option 3 states again a strong correlation between X and Y.

Whereas option 2 seems to break this correlation saying that there are people who knows Y without knowing X.

OA is B.


Kaplan has given the same explanation as Abhigang has given.
I am convinced with the explanation but I am not convinced with the word 'some'

The explanation is given with reference to some people not for most people. Then how it can weaken the argument.

Suppose B is :
Most people who know how a country's government works don't know how its government was formed.

Then I would have been agreed with it.

Can you people tell me what is the meaning of 'some.
Does it mean : 1 to 50
or it mean : 1 to 100

Please share your thoughts.

Couple thoughts:

When it comes to quantity words, there are none, few, some, half, most, and all. So, some will probably represent somewhere between 10-49%, but it's up for interpretation of course.

A and C both strengthen the argument (and we don't know what D and E are), so there's only B. Although it may not strongly weaken the argument, nevertheless it does weaken the argument.

Hey guys,

Thanks for the invite to participate! B is correct, as in weaken questions you want to find the gap in the argument's logic and then choose an answer choice that exploits that gap.

Here, the premise is that the children should know how the GOVERNMENT WORKS.

The conclusion is that we should teach them how the GOVERNMENT WAS FORMED.

The gap here is that the formation of the government might not be the way it works now, and that knowing one does not guarantee the other.

Choice A actually links the two, so it's closer to a Strengthen answer than a Weaken answer (and even at that it would be wrong, as it links causality the wrong way: Know Works ---> Know Formed, which doesn't necessarily mean that if you Know Formed ---> Know Works)

Choice B shows that knowing how the government works doesn't require you to know that how it was formed. It helps to further exploit that logical gap between the premise and the conclusion.

Choice C would directly strengthen it - if we teach them how the government was formed, most of them will then know how it works.


With Weaken questions, pay particular attention to how the premises miss the mark on the conclusion, and your correct answers will typically hinge directly on that gap.

Thanks Brian for a prompt reply.

Actualy I am convinced with the logic, what you have given, to select B.

I am confused only because of the usage of the word "SOME"
Had it been "MOST", I would have gone for B without any second thought.

My point is :

some people(lets say 10%) -> who know how a country's government works -> don't know how its government was formed.

so what, only some people are coming in this category.
-> most people are coming in another category -> they know how the government was formed.

hence based on the majority : children should be taught the history of their country and how its government was formed.

Unlike Brian, I don't think I am invited to this conversation...moving on.

uwhusky - please join us! I just figured your invitation was implied...

Here's the deal with "some" - the only thing that it truly means as far as GMAT logic is "not none". It could mean anything from 1 to all, inclusive.

Let's say I said this. Based on my message board activities, I'd say that uwhusky and paes want to do really well on the GMAT. So I could say "some people posting on this thread would like to do well on the GMAT". And I'm right.

Well, I think that all of us want to do really well on the GMAT. But I'm not wrong in saying "some" - maybe I didn't do enough research to be able to say "all", so I just said "some". "Some" doesn't mean that "all" or "most" are not true.

So...be careful with those percentage estimates of when to use some/most/etc. "Some" includes everything but "none".



As for this question, "some people who know how the government works don't know how it was formed" introduces doubt in the conclusion.


Think about it this way - you're at a school board meeting and the item up for vote is, essentially, "to make sure that people know how the government works we should teach them how it was formed". You want to weaken that conclusion because you think it's a waste of money. Yeah, it would be terrific if you could prove that most people who know government don't know its history, but if all you have are two members of the City Council that you can use as evidence, that still introduces doubt:

You: "Mr. Mayor, Ms. Controller, do you know how our government was formed?"
Response: "No, quite honestly we don't."
You: "Ladies and gentlemen, some people who clearly understand how government works do not know at all how it was formed. Therefore it's not necessary for us to invest in a program to teach students how the government was formed, and we can spend the money in a better way!"

Your job in a weaken question is to introduce doubt, or to emphasize that logical flaw between the premise and the conclusion. If you use choice B, it's enough to introduce that doubt that the premise does not guarantee the conclusion.


One more point, paes - to your point that "based on the majority, we should teach government history", we don't know that anyone, let alone the majority, who knows government history knows how it works. All we know is that some people who do know how it works (based on B) do not know its history. That's more LSAT-style logic (I suspect that's where this problem was adapted from), but could be helpful to know.

Thanks Brian.

It makes perfect sense to me now.

uwhusky wrote:Unlike Brian, I don't think I am invited to this conversation...moving on.

Thanks uwhusky for your response.

Your response shouldn't depend on my invitation.
It is a forum which is beneficial to me and everybody else here.
Your inputs as well as other's inputs are definitely valuable, the only thing that sometimes you want to confirm the things with the professional experts also.

Thanks to Pradeep, diebeatsthegmat and Abhigang also to share their views.