Critical Reasoning

It is clear that celebrities, despite their wealth, are more troubled, on average than are people who are not famous. This is evidenced by the high concentration of movie and television stars seen regularly on Wilshire Boulevard in Beverly Hills, an exclusive city in Los Angeles County. There, they are often spotted walking into and out of the facilities of many well known psychiatrists and plastic surgeons.

Which of the following would LEAST weaken the author's claims ?

(A) Many "B-movie" actors cannot afford to hire plastic surgeons.
(B) Ordinary citizens often forgo mental health treatment and cosmetic surgery for financial reasons.
(C) Troubled people are no more likely to pursue plastic surgery than are their emotionally stable counterparts.
(D) People of modest financial means are much less likely to be seen walking exclusive areas.
(E) Patients of psychiatrists differ from those not seeking such treatment primarily in terms of awareness of their own emotional vulnerabilities.

OA is A.

My take:
Conclusion presented: Wealthy celebrities are more troubled than average people.
A -> Not really related to the conclusion
B -> Ordinary citizens are equally troubled as celebrities but forgo treatment for financial reasons.
C -> Not related to the conclusion.
D -> Has nothing to do with conclusion. Since it does not talk about people's troubled health concerns.
E -> No relation of emotional vulnerabilities to money. So impact to conclusion.
Based on this, I think B should be the answer.

Would like to hear other people's thoughts and comments. Expert comments with explanations would be helpful.

Hi Apoorva!

Are you sure you got the question right? I have gone over it twice and nothing jumps out at me. I see no answer choice that strengthens the arguments. Which of the following LEAST weakens the argument would mean that we have to choose the answer choice that strengthens the argument. (I think!)

If I had to choose,I would choose E. People who know they are troubled go psychiatrists and lots of celebrities go to psychiatrists because they are troubled (and know it!)

Which of the following LEAST weakens the argument would mean that we have to choose the answer choice that strengthens the argument. (I think!)

@ shenoydevika,

LEAST weaken not just means Strengthens. It could also be a choice that does not affect the argument at all.
In 'Which of the following LEAST WEAKENS' - 4 choices will weaken the conclusion in one way or other (either strongly oppose or mildly weaken) and 1 choice might either strengthen or might not affect the conclusion at all. The choice that I usually tag with 'So What/ Who Cares/ I'm not Interested'.

Experts - Correct me if I'm wrong.

LEAST weaken not just means Strengthens. It could also be a choice that does not affect the argument at all.

Ah! Ok. That does make sense. I don't know why I didn't think of it that way.

The answer choice [spoiler][A][/spoiler] makes so much sense now.
Thanks. charu

Though I did get the answer of this question correct, but I still doubt that I understood the question stem perfectly.
Can anyone please explain the detailed analysis of each of the five choice statements and what are their effect on the conclusion?
How each statement either strongly weaken, least weaken, strengthen or most strengthen the conclusion stated in the question.

What I understood is:
Conclusion: More popular celebrities (obviously the wealthy ones) suffer more because they are seen visiting psychiatrists and plastic surgeons more often.
Do just visiting docs make these celebrities more troubled?

I didn't understand how the conclusion will be weakened.
Does the statement which suggest that wealthy celebrities are less troubled weakens the conclusion?
Or the statement which suggest that wealthy celebrities are indeed more troubled weakens the conclusion?

I know my doubt is a silly one, but I really didn't get this question.

Please help!