#25 - The number of airplanes equipped with a new

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

The stimulus commits the classic error of assuming that because two events occur simultaneously that one must cause the other. The phrase used to indicate causality is “responsible for.”

• D = anticollision device
  SD = sudden disappearance of key information
  
  
  Cause Effect
  
  D SD

The question stem asks you to weaken the argument, and according to the “How to Attack a Causal Conclusion” section you should be on the lookout for one of several primary methods of attacking the argument.

Answer choice (A): This answer presents another effect of the cause, but this additional effect does not weaken the argument. To analogize this answer to a different argument, imagine a scenario where a speaker concludes that playing football makes a person more prone to sustaining a leg injury. Would suggesting that playing football makes a person more prone to a head injury (another effect) undermine the first statement? No.
Answer choice (B): This is an Opposite answer that supports the conclusion. By showing that the key information did not disappear prior to the appearance of the anticollision device, the argument is strengthened because the likelihood that the device is at fault is increased.

Answer choice (C): This information has no effect on determining if the device causes the information to disappear from the screen because it references an event that has yet to occur.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, and this answer falls into the third category for weakening a causal argument: “Show that although the effect exists, the cause did not occur.” In this instance, the effect of information disappearing from the screen occurred prior to the creation of the supposed causal agent, the anticollision device.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice has no impact on the argument. We cannot make a judgment based on the size of the airport because the argument did not mention airport size or anything directly related to airport size.

[Dazhiw]

***The content of this question has been removed due to LSAC copyright rules & regulations***


let's say
D=anticollision device
SD=sudden disappearance
LA=large airports
OA=other size airports other than large airports

Conclusion: D ------> SD

I'm confused by choice E that since the LA are the only places that the SD would occur. So the SD will not occur at OA EVEN D IS EQUIPED. For me, it means that at OA, D occurs but the SD does not occur. It is the situation that even when the cause occurs, the effect does not occur. This attacks the conclusion D----->SD.

At the same time, E shows that the size of the airport could be the cause of SD. LA------->SD. (alternate cause) Also attacks the conclusion.

[Jon Denning]

Hey Dazhiw,

Thanks for the question! Your breakdown of the causality and argumentation of this question is correct: essentially the author concludes that the anti-collision device is responsible for the disappearance of information from air traffic controllers' screens.

As soon as you see that type of causal argument and are asked to weaken it, your goal is to introduce an answer choice that directly undermines the connection between the given cause and effect (basically break the relationship: by showing an alternate cause, the existence of either cause or effect alone, a possible reversal of the terms where effect led to cause, or an error in the supporting data itself).

Answer choice D is a very powerful attack on this argument because it shows the effect occurring for months prior to the cause existing. Hence, whatever the real cause of that information disappearance, it couldn't have been the device (the cause the author believes).

Answer choice E on the other hand has no real effect on this argument. Just because the issue has only occurred at relatively large airports, you still have no reason to believe that something other than the device was the cause. To assume that this perhaps means that it's the airport size causing the problem is far too presumptuous, as there is no information given to suggest that any relationship exists between airport size and the disappearance of information. That is, perhaps the only planes that even received the new device were those at large airports...in which case an answer like this could strengthen the conclusion! Just be extremely careful about taking the information in an answer choice and then making additional, unsupported assumptions about what it might mean.

So two final points to close:

(1) Weaken questions ask you to find the answer that "most seriously
weakens" the argument. Meaning even an answer choice you feel may
weaken a conclusion slightly can still be disregarded if another answer
weakens it much more directly/significantly.

(2) Weaken answers need to supply information that would, without
additional presumptions, attack the argument. If you find yourself
needing to add further pieces to an answer choice to make it apply,
chances are nearly certain that the answer is a trap.

I hope that helps!

[Dazhiw]

Hey Dazhiw,

Thanks for the question! Your breakdown of the causality and argumentation of this question is correct: essentially the author concludes that the anti-collision device is responsible for the disappearance of information from air traffic controllers' screens.

As soon as you see that type of causal argument and are asked to weaken it, your goal is to introduce an answer choice that directly undermines the connection between the given cause and effect (basically break the relationship: by showing an alternate cause, the existence of either cause or effect alone, a possible reversal of the terms where effect led to cause, or an error in the supporting data itself).

Answer choice D is a very powerful attack on this argument because it shows the effect occurring for months prior to the cause existing. Hence, whatever the real cause of that information disappearance, it couldn't have been the device (the cause the author believes).

Answer choice E on the other hand has no real effect on this argument. Just because the issue has only occurred at relatively large airports, you still have no reason to believe that something other than the device was the cause. To assume that this perhaps means that it's the airport size causing the problem is far too presumptuous, as there is no information given to suggest that any relationship exists between airport size and the disappearance of information. That is, perhaps the only planes that even received the new device were those at large airports...in which case an answer like this could strengthen the conclusion! Just be extremely careful about taking the information in an answer choice and then making additional, unsupported assumptions about what it might mean.

So two final points to close:

(1) Weaken questions ask you to find the answer that "most seriously
weakens" the argument. Meaning even an answer choice you feel may
weaken a conclusion slightly can still be disregarded if another answer
weakens it much more directly/significantly.

(2) Weaken answers need to supply information that would, without
additional presumptions, attack the argument. If you find yourself
needing to add further pieces to an answer choice to make it apply,
chances are nearly certain that the answer is a trap.

I hope that helps!

Thank you very much Jon, appreciated the detailed explaination. It really helps a lot, especially the last two final points! Yeah, i totally understand your point "perhaps the only planes that even received the new device were those at large airports...in which case an answer like this could strengthen the conclusion", it makes a lot sense.

I agree I went to far by assuming the size is an alternate cause. Sometimes it just hard to control my assumptions, especially after I encountered quite a few correct answer choices which have more deeper indication (at least for me at that point). Your final point No.2 would be a good warning for me in future.

Thanks again.