Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumWeaken

The following exercise presents four short arguments on various topics. For each argument, select the single piece of newly discovered information that exposes its most significant logical vulnerability and weakens its conclusion.

  • Archaeologist: A newly discovered ancient desert settlement contains thousands of fish bones. Thus, this arid region must have featured a large freshwater lake during the era the settlement was occupied.Extensive ancient trading networks connected this specific desert settlement directly to prosperous coastal fishing villages.
  • Cafe Owner: Since we switched to a less expensive brand of coffee beans, our weekly sales revenue has dropped by 15%15\%. Clearly, our customers dislike the taste of the new coffee and are consequently purchasing less.Coinciding with the switch in suppliers, major municipal utility work completely blocked pedestrian access to the street where the shop is located.
  • Biologist: A certain species of tree frog has vibrant blue skin. Since most brightly colored amphibians are highly venomous, this frog's coloration must serve as a warning to predators about its toxicity.The specific insects necessary to synthesize the toxins found in venomous amphibians do not exist anywhere near this frog's natural habitat.
  • Manager: We introduced a new productivity application intended to help employees complete tasks faster. A month later, employees logged the exact same number of total working hours as before. Thus, the application did not increase employee productivity.During the month the software was introduced, the company took on a massive new client that increased the overall required workload by 50%50\%.

Answer

The archaeological argument matches the fact about coastal trading networks. The business argument matches the fact about municipal utility work blocking access. The biological argument matches the fact about the absence of toxin-synthesizing insects. The tech management argument matches the fact about the massive new client increasing workload.
Each correct pairing successfully introduces a fact that attacks the unstated assumption of its respective argument. The trade fact provides an alternative source for the fish, the construction provides an alternative cause for lost revenue, the biological fact removes the mechanism for toxicity, and the workload fact proves productivity actually increased despite flat hours.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion and the supporting premise for each argument.
Isolated four distinct logical gaps: assuming local origin of artifacts, assuming a single cause for a revenue drop, assuming toxicity from coloration, and conflating flat work hours with flat productivity.
To weaken an argument, one must first locate the gap or assumption between the evidence provided and the conclusion drawn.
2
Evaluate the counter-evidence to find alternative explanations or facts that directly attack these specific assumptions.
The trade fact attacks local origin. The construction fact attacks the revenue cause. The diet fact attacks actual toxicity. The workload fact re-contextualizes the flat work hours.
The correct weakener will specifically exploit the vulnerability of its target argument without relying on unwarranted outside assumptions.
3
Pair the arguments with their corresponding weakeners.
All four pairs are logically matched.
Confirming that each piece of evidence uniquely and effectively undermines its specific target argument.

Key Concept

Identifying alternative causal explanations and recognizing when arguments rely on flawed assumptions to bridge premises and conclusions.
Rate this question

Topics

Weaken

More questions from this topic