Weaken Question!!!

[[email protected]]

A new study reports that every US president has had an IQ that placed him in the top two percent of the population: 138 or above. However, a different study focusing on leadership ability and potential concluded that the optimal IQ for a national leader is 125 - above average, but not in the top two percent. Therefore, no United States president has had an IQ optimal for a national leader.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion above?

A] President John. F.Kennedy's IQ as reported in the study was 127; and in the first, 159.

B] A president's election in the US depends less on his leadership potential than on the public's perception of his intelligence.

C] Leadership ability in the second study was determined by studying the IQs of current national leaders from 100 different countries around the world.

D] The calculation of IQ is not an exact science ; the margin of error can be as great as 3-4%.

E] IQ is only one of many factors that determines a national leader's success.



The OA is A. Somehow did not get this answer.

[patanjali.purpose]

A new study reports that every US president has had an IQ that placed him in the top two percent of the population: 138 or above. However, a different study focusing on leadership ability and potential concluded that the optimal IQ for a national leader is 125 - above average, but not in the top two percent. Therefore, no United States president has had an IQ optimal for a national leader.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion above?

A] President John. F.Kennedy's IQ as reported in the study was 127; and in the first, 159.

B] A president's election in the US depends less on his leadership potential than on the public's perception of his intelligence.

C] Leadership ability in the second study was determined by studying the IQs of current national leaders from 100 different countries around the world.

D] The calculation of IQ is not an exact science ; the margin of error can be as great as 3-4%.

E] IQ is only one of many factors that determines a national leader's success.



The OA is A. Somehow did not get this answer.

1st study: IQ>= 138 for Past Presidents; Note >=138 is THE IQ FOR TOP 2%
2nd study: 125<=IQ< LESS THAN TOP 2% ==> 125 <=IQ <138 for national leaders
Conclusion: NO PRESIDENT is a national leader

We aim to prove that some can fall in both categories or there is something wrong with the studies

lets start with last choice:
E - it talks about success of national leader (while conclusion/argument is about who can a national leader); drop
D - this could be answer but look at the nos max 3-4%. This proves that its both POSSIBLE AND not possible for presidents to be a national leader (consider 3% less than 125 = NOT POSSIBLE; CONSIDER 4% ABOVE 137- 137 is less than 138 - then its POSSIBLE). Since this choice can go either way we can drop

C - studies about other countries no relevance as argument about US president; drop

B - election of president is not the issue of argument; argument tries to find whether presidents can be national leader; drop

A remains - it says IQ of both studies are different; studies are not in sync; 2nd studies argunment that BUT IN TOP TWO PERCENT is not correct. This choice intends to say that its possible for a president to be a national leader.

[spoiler]IMO A;[/spoiler] very interesting thanks for posting

[vk_vinayak]

IQ > 138 -------> Top two percent.

125 < IQ < 138 ------> Optimal leader.

So, weaken the argument we need one example in which President's IQ is more than 125 and less than 138, which A does.

Although I didn't get the second part of option A, and not sure how does that matter to the answer( I just infered that it was redundant and chose A straightaway). Can somebody explain me?

Thanks

[sam2304]

The analogy is simple. The argument compares two studies, state facts and arrive at a conclusion based on the second study by showing some drawback in first study. Option A weaken's the argument by supporting both the studies with relevant facts, so both studies contradict each another and the conclusion is weakened.

[Bill@VeritasPrep]

A implies that the two studies are using different measurements of IQ. If true, that means that there could have been presidents with IQ's measured as 125 by the second study but measured as above 138 by the first study. This would destroy the conclusion.

B is irrelevant to the two studies.

C introduces data about countries other than the US, which is what the argument is about.

D almost works, but the margin of error is not great enough to bring an IQ above 138 down to 125.

E has no effect on the conclusion that no president has ever had an optimal IQ.