Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaWeakening Arguments

To reduce the incidence of waterborne gastrointestinal infections, health authorities in Region X distributed advanced home water filtration units to households in high-risk rural villages. Over the subsequent two years, regional health clinics recorded a 25 percent increase in diagnosed cases of waterborne infections among residents of these villages. Concluding that the filtration units were ineffective at removing pathogens, health officials suspended the distribution program. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the health officials' conclusion?

  1. As part of the filter distribution program, health authorities launched an active diagnostic campaign that routinely screened village residents, identifying many mild infections that previously went unrecorded.Cevap
  2. B
    Laboratory evaluations of returned filtration units indicated that organic debris accumulated quickly inside the filter housing when routine cleaning instructions were ignored.
  3. C
    In neighboring urban districts where the filtration units were not distributed, rates of waterborne gastrointestinal infections remained stable over the same two-year period.
  4. D
    A majority of surveyed villagers reported that the filtered water tasted substantially better than untreated water from local wells.
  5. E
    The overall financial expenditure required to import replacement filter cartridges exceeded the initial projections of the regional health budget.

Cevap

The argument is most seriously weakened by the evidence that an active diagnostic campaign increased the detection and recording of previously uncounted mild infections, explaining the higher case count without implying filter failure.
The correct answer weakens the argument by introducing an alternative explanation for the observed 25 percent increase in recorded infections. If health authorities actively screened residents and uncovered mild cases that previously went undetected, the rise in official case counts reflects improved detection rather than an actual increase in illness or a failure of the water filters.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument structure
Premise: Advanced water filters were distributed to rural villages. Premise: Diagnosed cases of waterborne infections rose by 25% over two years. Conclusion: The filtration units were ineffective at removing pathogens.
Identifying the gap between the premise (increase in diagnosed cases) and conclusion (failure of filters) is essential for finding the flaw.
2
Identify the central assumption and vulnerability
The argument assumes that an increase in *diagnosed cases* reflects an actual increase in *infection rate*, and that this increase was caused by filter inefficiency.
A classic weakening strategy for data-based arguments is to introduce a reporting bias or alternative cause for the statistical shift.
3
Evaluate the choices to find an alternative explanation
The choice describing the active diagnostic campaign demonstrates that cases were simply being detected at higher rates rather than occurring more frequently, directly undermining the conclusion.
Demonstrating that the data change is an artifact of surveillance method breaks the logical link between case count and filter failure.

Anahtar Kavram

Weakening Arguments - Alternate Explanation / Reporting Bias
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Weakening Arguments

Bu konudan daha fazla soru