Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumWeakening Arguments

To protect vulnerable alpine wildflowers from being trampled by foot traffic, park authorities plan to replace the ground-level soil path through a popular mountain meadow with an elevated wooden boardwalk. They reason that elevating the walking surface will prevent hikers from stepping on the surrounding vegetation, thereby allowing damaged plant populations to recover.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

  1. The broad wooden planks of the elevated boardwalk cast dense shade and redirect rainwater, suppressing the growth of delicate alpine plant species directly adjacent to the pathway.Answer
  2. B
    Preliminary trials in a neighboring park demonstrated that elevated boardwalks successfully reduced soil erosion by over eighty percent.
  3. C
    A majority of park visitors surveyed indicated a strong preference for guided nature tours rather than unguided trail walks.
  4. D
    Other mountain meadows in distant alpine regions have experienced plant recovery following severe droughts without any trail modifications.
  5. E
    The high costs associated with transporting wooden planks to high altitudes will require the park authority to reallocate funds from seasonal ranger payrolls.

Answer

The argument is most weakened by the finding that the broad wooden planks of the elevated boardwalk cast dense shade and redirect rainwater, suppressing the growth of delicate alpine plant species directly adjacent to the pathway.
The correct answer identifies an unforeseen side effect of the proposed plan. If the boardwalk blocks sunlight and redirects rainwater away from the adjacent soil, the plants will suffer from lack of vital nutrients regardless of whether foot traffic is removed. This directly undermines the argument's conclusion that the boardwalk will allow plant populations to recover.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion and premises of the argument.
Premise: Replacing soil paths with elevated boardwalks keeps hikers' feet off the ground. Conclusion: This change will allow damaged alpine wildflower populations to recover.
Understanding the logic underlying the plan is necessary to locate unstated assumptions.
2
Identify the central assumption underlying the plan.
The author assumes that elevating the path will not create any alternative conditions that hinder or destroy the wildflower population.
Weakening a plan-to-goal argument typically requires identifying an unintended side effect or bottleneck that prevents goal achievement.
3
Evaluate the choices to find new information that invalidates the assumption.
Showing that the physical structure of the boardwalk blocks essential sunlight and rainfall demonstrates that the plan itself will harm the plants, preventing their recovery.
This directly counteracts the central claim that the boardwalk will enable vegetation recovery.

Key Concept

Weakening a Plan-to-Goal Argument via Unintended Side Effects
Rate this question

Topics

Weakening Arguments

More questions from this topic