- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:40 pm
#22824
Complete Question Explanation
Weaken. The correct answer choice is (A)
Because the group of mountain climbers at high altitude exhibited slurred speech, poor comprehension, and bad judgment, the author concludes that speech must not be controlled by a distinct area of the brain. Do not get slowed down by the double negative in the conclusion: if the worsened performances disprove the theory that the area of the brain controlling speech is distinct from that controlling other functions, this is just another way of saying that speech, comprehension and reasoning are all controlled by the same area of the brain.
To weaken the argument, look for an answer choice suggesting that speech, comprehension and reasoning are each controlled by a distinct area of the brain.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The author argues that just because speech, reasoning, and comprehension were all affected by the lack of oxygen, speech cannot be controlled by an independent area of the brain. If high altitude conditions affected the entire brain, however, then it is entirely possible that comprehension, reasoning and speech were all simultaneously impaired even if they were controlled by distinct regions of the brain.
Answer choice (B): The climbers' performance in speech, comprehension and reasoning before the study is irrelevant to the scope of this argument. The author merely suggests that because all three of these attributes were simultaneously affected at high altitude, they must not be controlled by distinct and independent regions of the brain. The degree to which they were affected is irrelevant to this conclusion.
Answer choice (C): While this answer choice seems appealing at first, it does not suggest that the area of the brain controlling speech is distinct from that controlling other functions. It is quite possible that the different levels of impairment in speech, comprehension and reasoning were simply due to the varying amounts of oxygen required by each function, and not to any physiological attribute of the brain itself. This answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): At what altitude certain effects of oxygen deprivation became apparent is irrelevant to the author's conclusion. The reasons why some of them became apparent before the climbers reached 6,100 meters and others did not may have more to do with the different oxygen requirements for each function, rather than with any physiological particularities of the brain itself. This answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (E): The special training that climbers engaged in prior to their climb is irrelevant to understanding why all three performances deteriorated as they climbed past 6,100 meters. This answer choice is incorrect.
Weaken. The correct answer choice is (A)
Because the group of mountain climbers at high altitude exhibited slurred speech, poor comprehension, and bad judgment, the author concludes that speech must not be controlled by a distinct area of the brain. Do not get slowed down by the double negative in the conclusion: if the worsened performances disprove the theory that the area of the brain controlling speech is distinct from that controlling other functions, this is just another way of saying that speech, comprehension and reasoning are all controlled by the same area of the brain.
To weaken the argument, look for an answer choice suggesting that speech, comprehension and reasoning are each controlled by a distinct area of the brain.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The author argues that just because speech, reasoning, and comprehension were all affected by the lack of oxygen, speech cannot be controlled by an independent area of the brain. If high altitude conditions affected the entire brain, however, then it is entirely possible that comprehension, reasoning and speech were all simultaneously impaired even if they were controlled by distinct regions of the brain.
Answer choice (B): The climbers' performance in speech, comprehension and reasoning before the study is irrelevant to the scope of this argument. The author merely suggests that because all three of these attributes were simultaneously affected at high altitude, they must not be controlled by distinct and independent regions of the brain. The degree to which they were affected is irrelevant to this conclusion.
Answer choice (C): While this answer choice seems appealing at first, it does not suggest that the area of the brain controlling speech is distinct from that controlling other functions. It is quite possible that the different levels of impairment in speech, comprehension and reasoning were simply due to the varying amounts of oxygen required by each function, and not to any physiological attribute of the brain itself. This answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): At what altitude certain effects of oxygen deprivation became apparent is irrelevant to the author's conclusion. The reasons why some of them became apparent before the climbers reached 6,100 meters and others did not may have more to do with the different oxygen requirements for each function, rather than with any physiological particularities of the brain itself. This answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (E): The special training that climbers engaged in prior to their climb is irrelevant to understanding why all three performances deteriorated as they climbed past 6,100 meters. This answer choice is incorrect.
