- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 1819
- Joined: Dec 06, 2013
- Mon Feb 25, 2019 5:36 pm
#62949
Novirius,
The Ebola virus may be recently discovered, but that does not mean its existence is new. In fact, the author is trying to say that this recently-discovered virus was responsible for the Athenian plague millennia ago, so the author does not think the disease itself is new.
It is true that the host animals many years ago may be different from the host animal today. However, all we're trying to do with every wrong answer for this Weaken-Except question is make the argument's conclusion somewhat less likely. Although the host animals could be different, there's no reason to expect they're definitely different. Answer choice (C) makes the argument weaker as long as the animals have stayed the same. We have no special expectation that the animals would be different, so the fact that the host animals didn't live near Athens means that the argument now needs to prove that the host animals changed - so the argument is in a worse position than it was before. It needs to prove more to prove its point. Thus, it has been weakened.
I don't know if Ebola needs a specific host, but I do know from answer choice (C) that it's saying "the...host animals". Thus, it's claiming there are at least these host animals. Could the virus survive without them? Possibly! But if there are some host animals for it, an area without those animals will be at least somewhat less likely to have the disease than other areas. So, again, the answer weakens the argument. That the answer doesn't decisively refute the argument isn't a fatal objection - Weaken answers will typically make the argument less likely without fully destroying it, and that's perfectly fine. So don't ask whether the answer makes the argument's conclusion definitely false - ask instead if it undermined the support enough for you to think that the conclusion is shakier, less likely to be true, than it was before. Under that evaluation, answer choice (C) does undermine the support, making the author's argument shakier than it was before.
Robert Carroll
The Ebola virus may be recently discovered, but that does not mean its existence is new. In fact, the author is trying to say that this recently-discovered virus was responsible for the Athenian plague millennia ago, so the author does not think the disease itself is new.
It is true that the host animals many years ago may be different from the host animal today. However, all we're trying to do with every wrong answer for this Weaken-Except question is make the argument's conclusion somewhat less likely. Although the host animals could be different, there's no reason to expect they're definitely different. Answer choice (C) makes the argument weaker as long as the animals have stayed the same. We have no special expectation that the animals would be different, so the fact that the host animals didn't live near Athens means that the argument now needs to prove that the host animals changed - so the argument is in a worse position than it was before. It needs to prove more to prove its point. Thus, it has been weakened.
I don't know if Ebola needs a specific host, but I do know from answer choice (C) that it's saying "the...host animals". Thus, it's claiming there are at least these host animals. Could the virus survive without them? Possibly! But if there are some host animals for it, an area without those animals will be at least somewhat less likely to have the disease than other areas. So, again, the answer weakens the argument. That the answer doesn't decisively refute the argument isn't a fatal objection - Weaken answers will typically make the argument less likely without fully destroying it, and that's perfectly fine. So don't ask whether the answer makes the argument's conclusion definitely false - ask instead if it undermined the support enough for you to think that the conclusion is shakier, less likely to be true, than it was before. Under that evaluation, answer choice (C) does undermine the support, making the author's argument shakier than it was before.
Robert Carroll