Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardWeaken

City officials have introduced a municipal subsidy for independent bookstores, contingent on the stores hosting free weekly community events. Critics argue the subsidy will financially harm these businesses, as the grant amount is significantly smaller than the staffing costs required to host such events. However, this concern is unfounded. A recent comprehensive survey revealed that independent bookstores that already host regular community events report 40 percent higher annual revenues than those that do not. Thus, participating in this subsidy program will ultimately improve the financial health of the bookstores.

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

  1. A
    The free community events hosted by independent bookstores frequently attract large crowds of new customers who make substantial retail purchases during the event.
  2. B
    The monetary value of the new municipal subsidy is too small to cover even half of the expected operational costs for the weekly events.
  3. Independent bookstores that currently host regular community events generally do so because their exceptionally high pre-existing revenues allow them to afford the associated costs.Answer
  4. D
    Many independent bookstores have recently shifted a significant portion of their sales online in order to compete with larger corporate retailers.
  5. E
    Only those independent bookstores that host community events are capable of remaining financially viable in the current economic climate.

Answer

The option stating that independent bookstores hosting events do so because their high pre-existing revenues allow them to afford the costs.
The argument assumes that because independent bookstores hosting events have higher revenues, the events must be the cause of that financial success. The correct answer undermines this causal assumption by indicating reverse causality: these bookstores host events *because* they already possess high revenues. If this is true, the survey data is plagued by selection bias. Consequently, forcing a financially struggling bookstore to host events in order to receive a small subsidy will merely impose additional costs without producing the promised revenue boost, severely weakening the author's conclusion.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the argument's structure.
Premise: Stores that currently host events have 40% higher revenues. Conclusion: Participating in the event-based subsidy program will improve a bookstore's financial health.
Identifying the core premises and the main conclusion is necessary to pinpoint the logical gap in the reasoning.
2
Identify the underlying assumption.
The author assumes a causal relationship: hosting community events causes the higher revenue. The author rules out alternative explanations for the survey data.
Weaken questions often hinge on exposing flawed causal assumptions or selection bias in the evidence.
3
Evaluate the options for a counter-explanation.
The correct option demonstrates reverse causality (selection bias). It shows that the bookstores in the survey already had high revenues, meaning the events are a luxury afforded by success, not the cause of it.
If the cause and effect are reversed, then forcing financially struggling stores to host events will merely impose additional costs without generating the promised revenue, directly undermining the conclusion.

Key Concept

Weaken
Rate this question

Topics

Weaken

More questions from this topic