Critical Reasoning

Samuel 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, Samuel fished on another boat off Dutch Harbor and caught more fish than any other member of that boat.
B) Before becoming a fisherman, Samuel piloted a fishing boat whose members regularly caught record numbers of fish.
C) While fishing this past season, Samuel 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, Samuel fished this past season with experimental bait.
E) Amongst the fishing community in Dutch Harbor, Samuel has a reputation for being an especially bad fisherman.

Confused between C and D

siddhu161 wrote:Samuel 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, Samuel fished on another boat off Dutch Harbor and caught more fish than any other member of that boat.
B) Before becoming a fisherman, Samuel piloted a fishing boat whose members regularly caught record numbers of fish.
C) While fishing this past season, Samuel 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, Samuel fished this past season with experimental bait.
E) Amongst the fishing community in Dutch Harbor, Samuel has a reputation for being an especially bad fisherman.

Confused between C and D

IMO (D) Whats the OA....

Samuel is obviously a bad fisherman because he caught fewer fish than any of his teammates. <============= We need to weaken this logic.

Among the given options (B) and (E) can be rejected immediately because they are out of Scope...


(A) Two seasons ago --- Not convincing to attack the argument , might be luck favoured him then...

(C) Presents factor for which Samuel was not responsible - Seems promising , though health condition of other fishermen is not known.

If other fishermen were health ---- Then comparison between healthy fisher men who continued fishing and Samuel could not be made...

If we assume that other fishermen were not healthy ----- Then comparison can be made , but it is of no use...


This seems a far fetching reasoning , dragging us into further assumption and reasoning..

(D) Use of experimental baits might have reduced the number of fish caught - Seems promising , direct comparison with other fishermen is drawn..

HEnce IMO (D)

siddhu161 wrote:Samuel 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, Samuel fished on another boat off Dutch Harbor and caught more fish than any other member of that boat.
B) Before becoming a fisherman, Samuel piloted a fishing boat whose members regularly caught record numbers of fish.
C) While fishing this past season, Samuel 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, Samuel fished this past season with experimental bait.
E) Amongst the fishing community in Dutch Harbor, Samuel has a reputation for being an especially bad fisherman.

Confused between C and D

Hi Siddhu,

a quick Google search reveals that this is yet another Platinum GMAT question, so it's not surprising that it's poorly constructed.

The problem here is different - there are 3 valid weakeners among the choices. So, instead of no good answer (like the previous Platinum GMAT questions you posted) there are 3. Of course, on the actual GMAT there is always 1 great answer and 4 terrible ones.

I read the "official" explanation for this question and it's nonsensical - the justification for why A and C are wrong could easily be applied to D, which is the accredited choice. Each of A, C and D weaken the argument; A by providing conflicting evidence, suggesting that this catch is unrepresentative of Samuel's fishing ability and C and D by providing alternative explanations for why Samuel caught less fish.

3 strikes, Platinum GMAT is out!

Stuart