Test: Weaken Argument - GMAT MCQ

(A) Weather conditions in Ingrostia have been the same this year as they were last year.
This option does not directly question the spokesperson's claim. It suggests that weather conditions have remained consistent, which could support both the farmers' claim about unfavorable weather conditions and the spokesperson's claim about pesticide usage. It does not provide evidence that directly challenges either explanation.

(B) Einkorn has been losing its popularity to another variety of wheat called Durum that requires cheaper seeds and fewer fertilizers.
This option does not directly question the spokesperson's claim. It suggests a shift in popularity from Einkorn to Durum, which may affect the yield of Einkorn due to decreased cultivation. While it provides an alternative explanation for the decline in Einkorn's yield, it does not directly challenge the spokesperson's claim about pesticide usage.

(C) The yield of Spelt, a variety of wheat grown in Ingrostia that requires the same weather conditions as Einkorn but is extremely resistant to pests, has also declined.
This option most seriously calls the spokesperson's claim into question. It suggests that the decline in yield is not solely due to pesticide usage, as even Spelt, which is highly resistant to pests, has experienced a decline. This implies that factors other than pesticides, such as weather conditions, may be playing a significant role in the decline of wheat yield in Ingrostia.

(D) The spokesperson is not from an agricultural background, whereas the farmers are more knowledgeable about agricultural conditions.
This option raises doubts about the credibility of the spokesperson's claim based on their lack of agricultural background. However, it does not provide direct evidence to challenge the claim itself or offer an alternative explanation for the decline in yield.

(E) The global yield of Einkorn has been lower this year than in the previous years.
This option does not directly question the spokesperson's claim. It provides information about the global yield of Einkorn but does not directly address the cause of the decline. It may suggest that factors beyond local pesticide usage could be affecting the yield, but it does not directly challenge the spokesperson's claim.

In summary, option (C) is the statement that most seriously calls the spokesperson's claim into question. It presents evidence that Spelt, a wheat variety resistant to pests and requiring the same weather conditions as Einkorn, has also experienced a decline in yield. This suggests that factors other than pesticide usage, such as weather conditions, may be contributing to the decline in wheat yield in Ingrostia.

(A) Although many of the chain’s customers have never tried the vegetarian sandwich, in a market research survey most of those who had tried it reported that they were very satisfied with it.
This option provides positive feedback from customers who have tried the vegetarian sandwich, indicating that it has a high level of satisfaction among those who have actually tasted it. While this information is valuable, it doesn't directly address the profitability of keeping or dropping the sandwich. It doesn't provide any insight into whether the satisfaction translates to increased sales or if the sandwich's low sales are due to other factors.

(B) Many of the people who eat at the chain’s restaurants also eat at the restaurants of competing chains and report no strong preference among the competitors.
This option highlights that customers frequently dine at multiple fast-food chains and don't necessarily have a strong preference for one over the other. While this information may suggest that customers could easily switch to another chain if the vegetarian sandwich is dropped, it doesn't directly address the profitability of keeping or dropping the sandwich.

(C) Among fast-food chains in general, there has been little or no growth in hamburger sales over the past several years as the range of competing offerings at other restaurants has grown.
This option provides a broader context regarding the overall trend in hamburger sales across fast-food chains. It suggests that the demand for hamburgers has stagnated due to increased competition from other types of food offerings. However, this information does not directly weaken the argument about the profitability of the vegetarian sandwich. It doesn't address the specific impact of dropping the sandwich on the chain's profitability.

(D) When even one member of a group of diners is a vegetarian or has a preference for low-fat food, the group tends to avoid restaurants that lack vegetarian or low-fat menu options.
This option is the most relevant to the argument. It suggests that customers who have dietary preferences for vegetarian or low-fat options tend to avoid restaurants that don't offer such menu items. If the chain drops the vegetarian sandwich, it could potentially lose these customers, which could have a negative impact on profitability. This weakens the argument that dropping the sandwich would make the chain more profitable.

(E) An attempt by the chain to introduce a lower-fat hamburger failed several years ago, since it attracted few new customers and most of the chain’s regular customers greatly preferred the taste of the regular hamburger.
This option provides information about a previous attempt by the chain to introduce a lower-fat hamburger, which failed to attract new customers. It also mentions that the regular hamburger was greatly preferred by the chain's regular customers. While this information suggests that introducing healthier options may not necessarily lead to increased sales, it doesn't directly address the profitability of dropping the current vegetarian sandwich. It pertains to a different menu item and doesn't provide insight into the potential impact of discontinuing the vegetarian sandwich on the chain's profitability.

In summary, option (D) weakens the argument by highlighting that dropping the vegetarian sandwich could result in the loss of customers with specific dietary preferences, potentially affecting the chain's profitability.

A. This statement suggests that some investors who purchased stocks on credit (margin) are obligated to pay the full purchase price even as the stock's value declines. This indicates that these investors may suffer significant losses, which would likely discourage them from selling their stocks and thus decrease the volume of daily transactions. Therefore, option A weakens the argument by indicating that the volume of transactions may not rise dramatically in a falling market.

B. This statement suggests that many stockbrokers sell other investment products such as bonds, money-market funds, and insurance, which may actually improve in value during a falling stock market. This implies that while stock sales may decrease, there could be an increase in sales of these other investment products. Therefore, option B does not weaken the argument, as it presents an alternative avenue for stockbrokers to earn commission income.

C. This statement provides information about the breakdown of stock-buying and selling on Wall Street. It indicates that only ten percent of the transactions are conducted on behalf of individual investors, while the remaining ninety percent is conducted on behalf of institutional investors. This information is irrelevant to the argument and does not weaken it.

D. This statement suggests that relatively few stockbrokers give up stock trading and leave Wall Street after a rapidly falling market. However, it does not directly address the argument regarding the benefits of falling markets for stockbrokers. Therefore, option D does not weaken the argument.

E. This statement indicates that after a rapidly falling market, the volume of trading in the stock market generally declines and remains at a low level for an extended period of time. This directly contradicts the argument, which claims that the volume of daily transactions rises dramatically in such a market. Option E weakens the argument by indicating that the volume of trading may decrease rather than increase in a falling market.

Based on the analysis above, option E is the statement that most seriously weakens the argument.

A. This statement suggests that some publishers are selling books at extremely low prices, incurring losses in an effort to generate demand. While this may affect the profitability of publishers, it does not directly address the future of print books or the impact of eBooks. Therefore, option A does not weaken the argument.

B. This statement indicates that the import of cheaper paper from China has reduced the price of books significantly in the last three years. Although this may make print books more affordable, it does not address the rise of eBooks or the potential decline of print books in the future. Option B does not weaken the argument.

C. This statement suggests that people who own libraries are unlikely to get rid of paper books they currently own, regardless of the convenience offered by eBooks. This implies that there will still be a demand for print books among those who already possess personal libraries. Option C weakens the argument by suggesting that print books may continue to have a significant presence, especially among individuals with existing collections.

D. This statement suggests that people who prefer eBooks are not likely to purchase paper-based books. While this indicates a preference for eBooks among certain individuals, it does not directly address the overall future of print books or the extent to which eBooks will replace them. Option D does not weaken the argument.

E. This statement suggests that the arrival of eBooks has reignited interest in reading books, leading some people to purchase the corresponding paper version after reading an eBook. This indicates that there is still interest and demand for print books even after experiencing eBooks. Option E significantly weakens the argument by suggesting that the coexistence of eBooks and print books may actually complement each other rather than leading to the complete extinction of print books.

Based on the analysis above, option E is the statement that most seriously weakens the argument.

(A) A low faculty/student ratio is the effect of a well-rounded education, not its source.
This option addresses the relationship between the low faculty/student ratio and a well-rounded education. It suggests that the low ratio is a consequence or result of a well-rounded education, rather than being the primary factor responsible for it. While this statement challenges the reasoning to some extent, it does not directly identify a flaw in the argument that small student populations lead to low faculty/student ratios.

(B) Intelligence should be considered the result of childhood environment, not advanced education.
This option introduces a different perspective by suggesting that intelligence is primarily influenced by childhood environment rather than advanced education. However, it does not directly challenge or identify a flaw in the reasoning that small student populations lead to a well-rounded education through low faculty/student ratios.

(C) A very small student population does not by itself, ensure a low faculty/student ratio.
This option identifies the key flaw in the argument. It points out that a small student population alone does not guarantee a low faculty/student ratio. The argument assumes that a small student population automatically leads to a low ratio, overlooking other factors such as the number of faculty members, class sizes, and resources available.

(D) Parental desires and preferences rarely determine a child's choice of a college or university.
This option discusses the influence of parental desires and preferences on a child's choice of college or university. While this statement may be true, it does not directly challenge or address the reasoning that small student populations lead to a well-rounded education through low faculty/student ratios.

(E) Students must take advantage of the low faculty/student ratio by intentionally choosing small classes.
This option emphasizes the importance of students actively selecting small classes to make the most of a low faculty/student ratio. While it suggests a proactive approach for students, it does not directly challenge or identify a flaw in the argument that small student populations lead to well-rounded education through low faculty/student ratios.

Overall, option (C) is the best choice as it specifically highlights the flaw in the argument by pointing out that a small student population alone does not guarantee a low faculty/student ratio.

(A) Uses the phrase "personality disorders" ambiguously.
This option suggests that the argument lacks clarity or precision in its use of the term "personality disorders." If the phrase is ambiguous or undefined, it could create confusion and weaken the reasoning. However, while this might be a potential issue, it does not directly address the flaw in the argument related to causation and correlation.

(B) Fails to define the phrase "theta brain waves."
This option points out the lack of a clear definition or explanation of "theta brain waves." Without a proper understanding of what theta brain waves represent and their significance, it could be difficult to draw valid conclusions. However, this does not directly challenge the flawed reasoning that infers causation based on correlation.

(C) Takes a correlation to imply a causal connection.
This option correctly identifies the flaw in the reasoning. The argument assumes that because there is a correlation between the presence of certain personality disorders and an increase in theta brain waves while watching TV, watching too much TV causes an increased risk of developing personality disorders. However, correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and there could be other underlying factors or variables that contribute to the observed relationship.

(D) Draws a conclusion from an unrepresentative sample of data.
This option suggests that the conclusion is based on an unrepresentative sample of data. If the data used in the argument is not a proper representation of the population or lacks diversity, the conclusions drawn from it may not be valid or applicable to a broader context. However, this does not directly address the flaw in reasoning related to causation and correlation.

(E) Infers that watching TV is a consequence of a personality disorder.
This option states that the argument assumes that watching TV is a consequence of a personality disorder. However, this is not evident in the argument. The argument focuses on the correlation between theta brain waves and personality disorders and does not discuss the direction of causality or imply that watching TV is a consequence of a personality disorder.

Overall, option (C) is the best choice as it accurately identifies the flaw in the reasoning by pointing out the assumption that correlation implies a causal connection.

(A) People receiving blood transfusions often specify that blood from their relatives be used.
This option does not weaken the argument. If people frequently request blood from their relatives, it supports the premise that blood from relatives is more likely to be used in transfusions.

(B) Blood transfusions only rarely result in the recipient being infected with hepatitis.
This option weakens the argument by challenging the premise that blood from relatives is more likely to be infected with hepatitis. If blood transfusions rarely result in hepatitis transmission regardless of the source, it undermines the idea that blood from relatives poses a higher risk.

(C) Blood taken from a relative is highly likely to match a transfusion recipient's blood type.
This option does not weaken the argument. While it provides information about blood type matching, it does not address the issue of hepatitis infection, which is the focus of the argument.

(D) Donors to blood banks are always asked whether they have ever been infected with hepatitis.
This option does not weaken the argument. Asking blood donors about hepatitis infection helps ensure the safety of blood donations but does not directly address the comparison between blood from relatives and blood from blood banks.

(E) Blood that is to be used in a transfusion is always screened for hepatitis.
This option weakens the argument by presenting a safety measure that applies to all blood used in transfusions, regardless of the source. If all blood used in transfusions is screened for hepatitis, it suggests that the risk of contracting hepatitis is mitigated, regardless of whether the blood comes from relatives or blood banks.

Therefore, option (E) most seriously weakens the argument by highlighting that all blood used in transfusions is screened for hepatitis, reducing the risk of infection regardless of the source.

A. Most cyclists do not currently own bike helmets.
This option does not weaken the argument. The fact that most cyclists do not currently own helmets does not address the effectiveness of helmets in preventing serious injuries.

B. The cost of buying a proper bike helmet is significantly less than possible medical costs due to injury.
This option does not weaken the argument. While it presents a cost perspective, it does not directly address the effectiveness of helmets in preventing serious injuries.

C. Helmets have not proven useful in preventing head trauma in biking accidents since the force of the accident often causes the helmet to fall off.
This option weakens the argument by challenging the effectiveness of helmets in preventing head trauma. If helmets tend to fall off during accidents and are not useful in preventing head injuries, it undermines the argument that mandatory helmet use would decrease the number of serious injuries.

D. In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the number of injuries due to bike accidents was less than the national average.
This option does not weaken the argument. The lower number of injuries in the city compared to the national average does not address the effectiveness of helmets in preventing serious injuries.

E. Most of the serious injuries resulting from bike accidents occur due to head trauma.
This option most seriously weakens the argument. If most serious injuries in bike accidents are caused by head trauma, it supports the argument for mandatory helmet use. It suggests that wearing a helmet can significantly reduce the risk of head injuries and supports the need for the proposed ordinance.

Therefore, option (E) weakens the argument the most by providing evidence that head trauma is a primary cause of serious injuries in bike accidents, reinforcing the importance of helmets in preventing such injuries.

A. The late start of the classes would also require significant and inconvenient changes in the timing for the administrative staff.
This option raises concerns about the logistical implications of implementing a late start. If significant and inconvenient changes are required for the administrative staff, it may create challenges in coordinating schedules and maintaining efficient operations.

B. Only a few students who were high performers during their high school days when they had the habit of studying late at night volunteered.
This option weakens the assessment's generalizability. If only a few high-performing students with pre-existing habits of studying late at night volunteered, it suggests that the observed improvement may not be representative of the entire student population. The findings may not be applicable to all students.

C. Implementing certain state-of-the-art teaching methods would substantially increase the performance of the students, comparable to that observed in the assessment.
This option presents an alternative solution to improving student performance. If implementing state-of-the-art teaching methods can achieve comparable improvements, it suggests that changing the class start time may not be necessary or the most effective approach.

D. The Dean of the University is not in favor of changing the current timing of the classes.
This option highlights the opposition of a key decision-maker. If the Dean is against changing the class timing, it may hinder the implementation of the proposed change, regardless of the assessment's findings.

E. Late start of the classes also means that it would be more inconvenient for the students to arrive at the University using the more crowded public transport.
This option raises concerns about the potential negative consequences of a late start, specifically related to transportation. If the late start results in more crowded public transport and increased inconvenience for students, it may offset any potential benefits gained from studying late at night.

Among the options, option (C) provides the strongest grounds against implementing a late start of classes. If implementing certain state-of-the-art teaching methods can achieve substantial improvements in student performance comparable to those observed in the assessment, it suggests that changing the class start time may not be necessary or the most effective solution.

A. Milk pasteurization methods have become so efficient that milk can stand for two more days on the shelf without turning bad.
This option strengthens the argument by providing evidence that milk can indeed have an extended shelf life without turning bad, which supports the proponents' claim.

B. The southernmost counties are some of the country's largest milk producing regions.
This statement is unrelated to the argument and does not provide any information regarding the pricing or cost of milk.

C. Due to modern pasteurization and the present shelf life limit, incidents of illness due to contaminated milk are very rare.
This statement is also unrelated to the argument and does not provide any information about the pricing or cost of milk.

D. Milk retailers located in the southernmost counties have far greater operating costs than those in the city.
This option weakens the argument by suggesting that higher operating costs in the southernmost counties could explain the higher price of milk there, rather than solely attributing it to the extended shelf life.

E. Milk pasteurization methods are far from perfect, and extending the shelf life slightly increases health risks.
This option does not directly address the pricing or cost of milk, so it does not weaken the argument effectively.

Among the options provided, option D weakens the argument the most by suggesting an alternative reason for the higher price of milk in the southernmost counties, unrelated to the extended shelf life.