- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Thu Dec 12, 2019 3:43 pm
#72529
Complete Question Explanation
Weaken. The correct answer choice is (A)
The stimulus uses a premise about success rate to form a conclusion
about Carl’s competency as a detective. Ask yourself—does the premise
prove the conclusion? No, because there are many factors that could have
affected Carl’s performance. In this sense, the stimulus has incomplete
information, and we should try to discover a relevant piece of information
in one of the answer choices that will shed more light on why Carl’s
success rate is so low. Use this knowledge to make a general prephrase
that indicates you are looking for a piece of information that shows Carl’s
success rate is not as low as it seems or that other factors limited Carl’s
performance.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer. We discover that Carl
receives the hardest cases, and one would expect that the hardest cases
would yield a lower success rate. Notice that this answer does not attack
the premises. Even though they are still true, the conclusion is undermined
by the new evidence. This is typical of most Weaken question answers—
the premises are not addressed and the focus is on the conclusion.
Answer choice (B): This answer is irrelevant. It tries to use the opinion
of others about Carl’s performance in one capacity to refute facts about
his performance in another capacity. Personalize the answer—is this the
answer you would offer to weaken the argument against Carl if he were
your friend?
Answer choice (C): This is an Opposite answer that strengthens the claim
that Carl is incompetent by showing that Carl was not deprived of certain
resources for solving cases.
Answer choice (D): This is another Opposite answer that strengthens the
claim that Carl is incompetent. This time, the answer shows that Carl has a
previous record of poor performance.
Answer choice (E): This answer goes beyond the scope of the argument by
discussing the promotions of other officers. These promotions do not impact
Carl’s job and no information is given about Carl’s promotions. If you are
thinking that perhaps Carl’s poor performance is a result of dissatisfaction
over the promotions of others, then you are assuming too much.
Weaken. The correct answer choice is (A)
The stimulus uses a premise about success rate to form a conclusion
about Carl’s competency as a detective. Ask yourself—does the premise
prove the conclusion? No, because there are many factors that could have
affected Carl’s performance. In this sense, the stimulus has incomplete
information, and we should try to discover a relevant piece of information
in one of the answer choices that will shed more light on why Carl’s
success rate is so low. Use this knowledge to make a general prephrase
that indicates you are looking for a piece of information that shows Carl’s
success rate is not as low as it seems or that other factors limited Carl’s
performance.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer. We discover that Carl
receives the hardest cases, and one would expect that the hardest cases
would yield a lower success rate. Notice that this answer does not attack
the premises. Even though they are still true, the conclusion is undermined
by the new evidence. This is typical of most Weaken question answers—
the premises are not addressed and the focus is on the conclusion.
Answer choice (B): This answer is irrelevant. It tries to use the opinion
of others about Carl’s performance in one capacity to refute facts about
his performance in another capacity. Personalize the answer—is this the
answer you would offer to weaken the argument against Carl if he were
your friend?
Answer choice (C): This is an Opposite answer that strengthens the claim
that Carl is incompetent by showing that Carl was not deprived of certain
resources for solving cases.
Answer choice (D): This is another Opposite answer that strengthens the
claim that Carl is incompetent. This time, the answer shows that Carl has a
previous record of poor performance.
Answer choice (E): This answer goes beyond the scope of the argument by
discussing the promotions of other officers. These promotions do not impact
Carl’s job and no information is given about Carl’s promotions. If you are
thinking that perhaps Carl’s poor performance is a result of dissatisfaction
over the promotions of others, then you are assuming too much.