Critical Reasoning

Many consumers are concerned about the ecological effects of wasteful packaging. This concern probably explains why stores have been quick to stock new cleaning products that have been produced in a concentrated form. The concentrated form is packaged in smaller containers that use less plastic and require less transportation space.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the explanation offered above?

(A) Few consumers believe that containers of concentrated cleaning products are merely small packages of regular cleaning products.
(B) The containers in which concentrated cleaning products are packaged are no harder to recycle than those in which regular cleaning products are packaged.
(C) Those concentrated cleaning products that are intended to be used diluted have clear instructions for dilution printed on their labels.
(D) The smaller containers of concentrated cleaning products enable supermarkets and drugstores to increase their revenues from a given shelf space.
(E) Consumer pressure has led to the elimination of wasteful cardboard packaging that was used for compact discs.

I think my weak point in CR is weakening questions.Need help on this aspect of CR in general and also the above question. PLz come to rescue.

The topic of discussion is ecological effects of wasteful packaging:

A: WEAKENS but irrelevent to ecological effects
B: WEAKENS; states that status quo is maintained whether it is small packaging or large packaging
C: something like A but again,irrelevent to ecological effects
D: irrelevent to ecological effects
E: actually STRENGTHENS

so I'd go for B

IMO; D

in D we have alternate reason to do something.

here is my logic

if X causes Y

for weakinig

Y can causes X
something else can causes Y
X does not happens but Y happens

for strengthen

Only X can causes Y
Y does not causes X
Nothing else causes Y

IMO its B..what is the OA?

IMO D

This statement clearly undermines the concern is not due to ecological effects of wasteful packaging but due to increased revenue resulting from use of small containers of concentrated cleaning products.

IMO B

IMO B

Here is my analysis of this CR question.

Conclusion--> '..PROBABLY explain why stores have been quick to stock new cleaning products....'.

Some key words to note before analysing: 'Many consumers..', '..probably explain..'

The question we need to ask is 'What is the probablity that the reason for the stores to be quick in stocking the new cleaning products in smaller packages(Concentrated)?'. If this probablity could be less than 1, meaning there could be other reasons for their action, then any answer choice that gives us the reason should weeken the Argument.

Write down: Conclusion--> PROBABILITY = 1
Weaken Conclusion--> PROBABILITY < 1

While Answer choices A, C and E can be eliminated for reasons already posted, Answer choices B and D are contenders and would require a little more thought.

B--> This is a neutral answer choice.

It draws a parallel b/w 'old' and 'new' containers aka smaller and larger containers. While it does imply that there is no advantage of using smaller containers with respect effort required to recycle, it does not take into account the ecological impact of using less plastic and requiring less transportation space (Last sentence in the stimulus). The 'PROBABLITY = 1' is not undermined with this answer choice.

D--> This is a weakening answer choice.

It clearly tells us that cleaning products in their concentrated form allow the stores to make extra 'bucks' and hence prompt the stores to quickly stock them on their shelves. Changes 'PROBABLITY = 1' to 'PROBABLITY < 1'.

IMO D