Test: Weaken - GMAT MCQ

The argument states that in a free country, people have the right to take risks with their bodies as long as they don't cause harm to others. Therefore, individuals should have the right to decide whether to use marijuana. To weaken this conclusion, we need to find an option that challenges the idea that using marijuana does not cause harm to others.

Let's analyze each answer choice:

(A) The rate of overdose fatalities in countries that do not have drug laws that forbid using marijuana is greater than the rate of fatalities in countries that do have such laws.

• This answer choice is irrelevant to the conclusion because it focuses on overdose fatalities rather than harm caused to others. It does not provide any evidence regarding harm caused to third parties by marijuana users.

(B) Unlike cocaine or heroin, there is little evidence, if any, that marijuana is addictive.

• This answer choice does not directly address the potential harm caused to others by marijuana users. It discusses the addictive properties of marijuana, but the argument is focused on the harm caused to others, not addiction.

(C) A greater percentage of fatal car accidents are caused by marijuana users than by alcohol users.

• This answer choice weakens the conclusion because it presents evidence that marijuana users can cause harm to others through their actions. If marijuana users are responsible for a higher percentage of fatal car accidents compared to alcohol users, it suggests that the use of marijuana can result in harm to innocent individuals.

(D) There is no evidence to suggest that people suffer medical maladies as a result of second-hand marijuana smoke.

• This answer choice does not directly address the potential harm caused to others by marijuana users. It focuses on second-hand smoke, but the argument is concerned with harm caused directly by the use of marijuana, rather than passive exposure to smoke.

(E) Health insurance rates for all people are higher because of the need to pay for the increased medical care users of marijuana require.

• This answer choice does not directly address the potential harm caused to others by marijuana users. It focuses on increased health insurance rates but does not establish a causal link between marijuana users and harm to others.

Therefore, the most relevant answer choice that weakens the conclusion is (C). It challenges the argument by suggesting that marijuana users can cause harm to others through their actions, specifically by being involved in a greater percentage of fatal car accidents compared to alcohol users.

This problem exemplifies a common Strengthen/Weaken structure when prompts involve data: the data given (the average rental cost of an apartment) is very related to but just slightly different from the data in the conclusion (that the average renter pays more). Note that these are two different metrics: what the average apartment costs vs. what the average renter pays.

Correct choice (C) shows why this is a gap: what if almost everyone in Trenchard Falls has a roommate (or several), but very few people in Saratoga Springs does? That would mean that the average $1600 rent in Trenchard Falls gets split between multiple people, whereas the average $1400 rent in Saratoga Springs is paid by only one person. At that point renters in Trenchard Falls would pay much less than their neighbors the next town over. Choice (C) attacks that gap between "average apartment" and "average renter" and is therefore correct.

Among the other choices:

If anything, (A) strengthens the conclusion by showing that Saratoga Springs has taken an active (limiting rent increases) step toward keeping rent down.

(B) does have some merit as it shows a potential reason why Trenchard Falls rent may be expensive, but note that you don't have a comparison to Saratoga Springs which could also rank high on those lists. Since the conclusion is a direct comparison between the two cities, merely knowing that there is demand for housing in one doesn't help you better understand that comparison.

(D) suggests a reason that someday rent might come down in Trenchard Falls (more supply), but note that the politician's conclusion is about the current state of affairs, for one, and that just adding more supply doesn't mean it will be more affordable supply.

And (E) similarly talks about the future, suggesting that rent in Saratoga Springs may soon catch up, but again the conclusion is about the present.

Let's analyze each answer choice and determine which one undermines the tariff's justification the most:

(A) Art imports were taxed to help pay for the Civil War.

• This information does not directly undermine the justification for the art tariff. It provides a different reason for taxing art imports, but it does not challenge the idea that art should be classified as a luxury item or whether it is an instrument of culture.

(B) Most art collectors donated their works to museums.

• This answer choice directly weakens the justification for the art tariff. If most art collectors donated their works to museums, it suggests that art is not primarily viewed as a luxury item or a commodity. Instead, it supports the idea that art is seen as an instrument of culture and an essential element of public education, as argued by the opponents of the tariff.

(C) Most artworks imported to America were purchased by private collectors.

• This information does not directly undermine the justification for the art tariff. It suggests that art is primarily bought by private collectors, but it does not challenge the idea that art should or should not be classified as a luxury item or an instrument of culture.

(D) The status of art as a material object distinguishes it from music.

• This answer choice does not directly weaken the justification for the art tariff. It highlights a difference between art and music but does not address whether art should be considered a luxury item or an instrument of culture.

(E) Works by contemporary artists were excluded from the tax.

• This information does not directly undermine the justification for the art tariff. Excluding works by contemporary artists from the tax does not challenge the idea of art as a luxury item or an instrument of culture.

Therefore, the answer choice that most seriously undermines the justification for the art tariff is (B) Most art collectors donated their works to museums. This choice supports the notion that art is considered an instrument of culture and an essential element of public education, countering the idea that it should be classified as a luxury item and subject to taxation.

The argument presented states that Booker awards generate intense debates and controversies regarding the deserving winners, unjust overlooks, and unfair judgments. To weaken this assessment, we need to provide information that undermines the idea that Booker awards consistently lead to intense literary brawls and backbiting.

Let's evaluate each option:

(A) The Nobel Prize for literature brings with it more acclaim, honor, and recognition than the Booker Prize.

• This statement is irrelevant to the argument. It discusses the relative merits of the Nobel Prize and does not provide any information about the intensity of debates or controversies surrounding the Booker Prize. Therefore, it does not weaken the assessment made in the argument.

(B) Whenever any literary award is announced, it is usual for the people in the field the world over to raise controversies, most of which are unjustified.

• This option strengthens the argument by suggesting that controversies surrounding literary awards are common and often unjustified. It does not weaken the assessment that Booker awards specifically generate intense debates and backbiting.

(C) There have been some years, including the year in which Arundati Roy was chosen for the award, when there was universal approval of the choices.

• This option weakens the argument by providing a counterexample. If there have been years when the choices for the Booker Prize were universally approved, it undermines the claim that controversies and backbiting are always present. It suggests that there are instances where the winners are widely accepted and appreciated.

(D) This year's Booker Prize for the novel 'The Line of Beauty' has raised a controversy that it is not better than another entry 'Cloud Atlas.'

• This option strengthens the argument by providing a specific example of a controversy surrounding a Booker Prize decision. It supports the claim that the Booker Prize leads to intense debates and judgments.

(E) Literature is a field where one would think the practitioners have risen well over petty squabbles and criticisms.

• This option does not provide any specific information about Booker awards or the intensity of debates and controversies. It is a general statement about the field of literature and does not weaken the assessment made in the argument.

Based on the analysis, the option that weakens the assessment made in the argument is (C) There have been some years, including the year in which Arundati Roy was chosen for the award, when there was universal approval of the choices.

Let's analyze each answer choice and see how it affects the argument:

(A) In the two decades before the last two, the disparity between salary and housing prices was rising too.

• This statement suggests that the trend of increasing housing prices relative to salaries was not limited to the last two decades. If this is the case, it weakens the argument because it indicates that the government's actions in the last two decades may not be solely responsible for the decline in home ownership.

(B) The trend of rental accommodation has increased drastically in the last two decades, adding to the financial benefits of owning a house and thereby, increasing the cost of owning a house.

• This statement suggests that the increase in rental accommodation has contributed to the rising cost of owning a house. While it does not directly address the government's role, it provides an alternative explanation for the increase in housing prices, thereby weakening the argument.

(C) Most immigrants who entered the country in the last two decades have purchased their own houses.

• This statement is irrelevant to the argument. It discusses the home ownership of immigrants but does not address the issue of the declining home ownership rate among the working population. Therefore, it does not weaken the argument.

(D) The percentage of working people owning their own houses has declined more rapidly in the last decade than in the decade preceding this last.

• This statement strengthens the argument because it indicates that the decline in home ownership has accelerated in the last decade. It suggests that whatever actions or lack thereof the government has taken in recent years, they have been insufficient to address the problem.

(E) The number of jobs in the country has gone up by fifty percent while the number of houses has gone up by forty percent in the last two decades.

• This statement weakens the argument by providing an alternative explanation for the decline in home ownership. It suggests that the increase in jobs has not been met with a proportional increase in the number of houses, which could have contributed to the rising housing prices and the difficulty in purchasing homes.

Based on the analysis, answer choice (E) weakens the argument the most.

The argument's conclusion is that it should be each person's decision whether or not to wear a seat belt, based on the premise that people have the right to take risks as long as they do not harm others.

Let's evaluate each answer choice:

(A) Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat.

• This answer choice provides information about a feature in new cars but does not directly address the conclusion. It does not weaken the argument.

(B) Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need to pay for the increased injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts.

This answer choice introduces the concept of increased insurance rates due to injuries or deaths of individuals not wearing seat belts. This information directly weakens the argument because it shows that not wearing seat belts can have financial consequences for others, thus harming them indirectly.

(C) Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.

• This answer choice introduces a comparison between seat belt requirements in airplanes and cars. However, it does not directly address the conclusion about individual rights and does not provide any information that weakens the argument.

(D) The rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws is greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws.

• This answer choice directly weakens the argument by providing evidence that states with mandatory seat belt laws have lower fatality rates. This suggests that wearing seat belts can significantly reduce the risk of fatalities and contradicts the argument's premise that individuals should have the right to take risks without causing harm to others.

(E) In automobile accidents, a greater number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured than passengers who do wear seat belts.

• This answer choice provides information about the likelihood of injury in automobile accidents based on seat belt usage. Although it suggests a correlation between seat belt usage and reduced injuries, it does not directly address the conclusion about individual rights and does not weaken the argument.

After evaluating each answer choice, it becomes clear that option (B) weakens the conclusion most effectively. It demonstrates that not wearing seat belts can lead to increased financial burdens on others through higher insurance rates. Therefore, (B) is the correct answer.

The argument states that Drew received roses instead of violets, which Drew prefers, and there was no card included with the flowers. The conclusion drawn from this is that the florist made a mistake, either by sending the wrong flowers or by intending the flowers for someone else.

(A) Most people send roses when they send flowers.

• This statement is irrelevant to the argument because it doesn't address the specific situation regarding Drew's preference for violets and the absence of a card. It doesn't weaken or strengthen the argument.

(B) Some people send flowers for a reason other than the desire to please.

• This statement weakens the argument because it suggests that there could be a reason other than knowing Drew's preferences for why roses were sent instead of violets. The sender may have had a different intention, such as conveying sympathy or expressing gratitude. Therefore, the florist's choice of roses may not necessarily be a mistake.

(C) Someone who does not know Drew well would be unlikely to send Drew flowers.

• This statement is also irrelevant to the argument. It doesn't address the issue of the florist's mistake or the absence of a card. It doesn't weaken or strengthen the argument.

(D) The florist has never delivered the wrong flowers to Drew before.

• This statement strengthens the argument by implying that the florist is usually reliable and doesn't make mistakes in delivering flowers. It supports the conclusion that the florist might have made a mistake this time.

(E) Some people who know Drew well have sent Drew cards along with flowers.

• This statement is also irrelevant to the argument. It doesn't address the issue of the florist's mistake or the absence of a card. It doesn't weaken or strengthen the argument.

Among the answer choices, (B) weakens the argument the most by suggesting an alternative reason for sending roses instead of violets. It introduces the possibility that the flowers were sent for a different purpose, not solely to please Drew. Therefore, option (B) is the correct answer.

Let's analyze each answer choice to determine which one criticizes the lawyer's argument most effectively.

(A) This answer choice points out that the lawyer's argument assumes that all items of circumstantial evidence have equal importance and contribute equally to the overall strength of the evidence. However, it is possible that some items of evidence are more critical or influential than others. Therefore, if those critical items were discredited, the overall strength of the evidence would be significantly diminished. This criticism effectively undermines the lawyer's argument. Hence, (A) is the correct answer.

(B) This answer choice states that the argument assumes the strength of the whole body of evidence is less than the sum of its individual parts. However, the argument does not make this presumption, as it emphasizes that adding more items of evidence strengthens the overall body of evidence. This answer choice does not accurately criticize the lawyer's argument.

(C) This answer choice suggests that if many items in a body of circumstantial evidence were discredited, the overall body of evidence would be discredited. However, the lawyer's argument explicitly states that even if a few items of evidence are discredited, the overall strength of the evidence is not significantly diminished. Therefore, (C) does not effectively criticize the lawyer's argument.

(D) This answer choice claims that the lawyer's argument fails to indicate whether the two types of things compared in the analogy (strands of a rope and pieces of evidence) share any similarities. However, the analogy presented by the lawyer is clear and understandable. The comparison is between adding strands to a rope to strengthen it and adding pieces of circumstantial evidence to strengthen the body of evidence. Thus, (D) does not provide a valid criticism.

(E) This answer choice suggests that the lawyer's conclusion simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion. However, the lawyer's argument presents an analogy and uses it to argue that even if a few items of evidence are discredited, the overall body of evidence retains its basic strength. The conclusion goes beyond restating the initial claim. Therefore, (E) does not effectively criticize the lawyer's argument.

In summary, among the given answer choices, (A) provides the strongest criticism of the lawyer's argument.

Let's examine each answer choice:

(A) A few children still use traditional wooden sleds.

• This answer choice does not directly weaken the evidence. The fact that a few children still use wooden sleds does not necessarily negate the claim that plastic sleds are more dangerous.

(B) Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding.

• While the lack of protective gear may contribute to injuries, it does not specifically address the comparison between plastic and wooden sleds. Therefore, this answer choice does not significantly undermine the evidence.

(C) Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.

• This answer choice weakens the evidence provided. If plastic sleds can be used in a wider variety of snow conditions, it suggests that the increase in injuries may not be solely due to the switch to plastic sleds. Other factors, such as varying snow conditions, could contribute to the higher injury rate.

(D) Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled.

• This answer choice does not directly weaken the evidence. While it provides information about the causes of injuries, it does not address the comparison between plastic and wooden sleds.

(E) Because the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.

• This answer choice also does not directly weaken the evidence. It explains a scenario where multiple children can be injured in a single accident involving a wooden sled, but it does not address the higher overall injury rate associated with plastic sleds.

Among the options, answer choice (C) is the one that most significantly weakens the force of the evidence. It suggests that the higher number of injuries could be attributed to other factors related to snow conditions rather than solely to the type of sled used.

(A) The cost benefits of investing in agrarian technology could take several years to manifest.

• This answer choice suggests that the benefits of investing in agrarian technology may not be immediate. While this could be a potential concern, it does not directly raise doubts about the effectiveness of the government's plan. It simply indicates a delay in seeing the cost benefits.

(B) Overseas farmers might have some competitive advantage over domestic farmers other than price competitiveness.

• This answer choice suggests that there may be other advantages that overseas farmers have over domestic farmers, besides just lower prices. While this could impact the competitiveness of domestic agriculture, it doesn't necessarily undermine the effectiveness of the government's plan to subsidize domestic farmers and invest in technology.

(C) Domestic producers of agriculture have some incentive not to use the subsidies to invest in agrarian technology.

• This answer choice is the most serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the government's plan. If domestic producers have incentives not to use the subsidies for investing in agrarian technology, it undermines the intended purpose of the subsidies. The effectiveness of the plan relies on the assumption that the subsidies will be used for technological investments, but if domestic farmers choose not to do so, the plan would fail to achieve its goals.

(D) The technological enhancement will be valid only for two years, after which competitors in other countries would have outpaced the capabilities of domestic agriculture.

• This answer choice suggests that the technological enhancement provided by the subsidies will only be effective for a limited period. While this is a valid concern, it does not necessarily raise doubts about the overall effectiveness of the government's plan. It suggests that the plan's impact may be short-lived, but it doesn't negate the potential benefits during the initial two years.

(E) The subsidies paid to domestic farmers will come out of national tax funds that would be better spent in other ways.

• This answer choice raises a concern about the allocation of national tax funds. While it questions the opportunity cost of using the funds for subsidies, it doesn't directly challenge the effectiveness of the government's plan to improve the competitiveness of domestic agriculture.

In conclusion, option (C) is the most serious doubt because it directly undermines the assumption that the subsidies will be used by domestic farmers to invest in agrarian technology, which is a crucial aspect of the government's plan to improve the competitiveness of domestic agriculture.