#1 - Planting peach trees on their farm makes more sense for

[Dancingbambarina]

Also, the explanation of C says we need a relative positive or negative respectively.

Surely to weaken we could show they are the same ? I notice this often with anticausal arguments, where the conlcusion is X does NOT cause Y, and we need to show that indeed X causes Y. Would it work the same with conditionality and an example like this? I would have thought that with that causal example, we would have to show X does indeed cause Y, but with a weaken argument like this, surely we can just mitigate the praise of peach trees down to the level of the apricot tree?

Thanks very much

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Dancingbambarina,

I'm not sure that I'm entirely following your first question/example.

The argument is comparing/contrasting planting peach trees with planting apricot trees and concludes that planting peach trees is the better option for the Johnsons. This is based on the fact that peach trees are cheaper to buy/plant and they produce fruit sooner.

Anytime an argument involves choosing between two options, one should analyze the pros and cons of each option in order to determine which is option is better. Here, in this argument, several pros (i.e. benefits) are listed for planting peach trees. To weaken this argument, we would either want to show cons (i.e. downsides) of planting peach trees or show pros (i.e. benefits) of planting apricot trees. Either of these will weaken the argument that planting peach trees is the better choice.

Showing a similarity in some of the costs between the two options (as Answer C does) in no way weakens the argument. Since we already know that peach trees offer certain benefits from the premises, if other factors are similar, that is consistent with peach trees still being the better option. If Answer C had stated that it costs more to water and fertilize peach trees than apricot trees, this would be a con/downside of the peach tree option and would therefore weaken the argument.

It's important to realize that Answer C is only describing a partial cost of growing peach or apricot trees (watering/fertilizing), so this does not change the fact that peach trees are cheaper to buy and grow as stated in the premise of the argument.

[Dancingbambarina]

Hi Dancingbambarina,

I'm not sure that I'm entirely following your first question/example.

The argument is comparing/contrasting planting peach trees with planting apricot trees and concludes that planting peach trees is the better option for the Johnsons. This is based on the fact that peach trees are cheaper to buy/plant and they produce fruit sooner.

Anytime an argument involves choosing between two options, one should analyze the pros and cons of each option in order to determine which is option is better. Here, in this argument, several pros (i.e. benefits) are listed for planting peach trees. To weaken this argument, we would either want to show cons (i.e. downsides) of planting peach trees or show pros (i.e. benefits) of planting apricot trees. Either of these will weaken the argument that planting peach trees is the better choice.

Showing a similarity in some of the costs between the two options (as Answer C does) in no way weakens the argument. Since we already know that peach trees offer certain benefits from the premises, if other factors are similar, that is consistent with peach trees still being the better option. If Answer C had stated that it costs more to water and fertilize peach trees than apricot trees, this would be a con/downside of the peach tree option and would therefore weaken the argument.

It's important to realize that Answer C is only describing a partial cost of growing peach or apricot trees (watering/fertilizing), so this does not change the fact that peach trees are cheaper to buy and grow as stated in the premise of the argument.

Thank you Jeff for an easy to read, excellent response. I appreciate your help tremendously.

[Dancingbambarina]

I just have a question about how to approach weaken questions, and am using this example as the zero.

Would a third (unknown) point of weakness be effective here? Or would the weakeness in the AChoices HAVE TO weaken the points of lower cost and younger age bearing fruit ? I ask because this is prevalent in weaken questions: Where a stimulus writes off a point of possible weakness (in this example its popularity being the same and not different ergo same demand) and then goes on to present support like this stimulusm (lower cost and lower age to bear fruit).

Would a completely different AC choice be able to weaken a stimulus like this?

My guess is if you don't have a AC like A, addressing the appropriate weakness points that connect to the concluison, then yes.

Thank you so much.

[Dana D]

Hey Dancing,

My guess is if you don't have a AC like A, addressing the appropriate weakness points that connect to the concluison, then yes.

You won't have a correct answer that is not related to the conclusion, because we are always weakening by attacking the premesis the author uses to reach their conclusion. Otherwise, the answer choice is irrelevant. Answer chioce (D) is kind of an example of that here - it says that demand for apricots has gone up, which might make you think it's a good way to weaken the argument for growing peaches. However, the author supports their conclusion by citing the individual cost and fruit bearing of the trees, so we're going to want an answer choice that is related to that. If we're not picking an answer choice related to the author's points, then we're not weakening the author's argument.

Hope that helps!