Bibinaz wrote:
A recent report suggests that the increasing popularity of free e-paper will lead to a decline in the willingness of people to buy newspapers in the coming years; however, the report is clearly flawed. Despite the wide accessibility of e-leaning courses, students continued to enroll for classroom courses. Given that the availability of e-learning courses did not stop students to pay for classroom courses, it is unlikely that people will cease from buying newspaper in the future.
report: free e-paper--> decline in the willingness of people to buy newspapers
con: the report is flawed... (free e-paper will not lead to the decline of people's willingness to buy newspapers) this is what we are going to weaken.
wide accessibility of e-learning courses ...>no decline in the classroom courses' enrollment
prethinking: this is an analogy case. in analogy arguments, it is assumed that the two cases are similar and have similar conditions.
if an option shows that these two cases are not similar somehow, it will weaken the conclusion.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Students value the competitive environment provided by the group study in the classroom learning. this option is a serious weakener. because it shows that the analogy is incorrect. this option shows that the students perceive the value of group learning that they attend the classroom courses and why online courses could not take the place of classroom ones.. while group learning cannot be a reason to read newspapers!!
B. A large proportion of students who take online course also enroll in classroom course. in first glance I took this as a contender but notice the language of this option.. a large majority.. it means there are still students who just enroll in online courses. if similar case happens for newspapers, the number of those people who are willing to read newspapers will decline! it weakens the argument but it's effect is tangential and consider that this option has no touch with the analogy in the argument. it does not give good reason to imagine why people who read e-papers will continue to read newspapers!
C. Students who take classroom course tend to buy online course more often than students who do not take classroom course analogy between students who take classroom courses and those who do not take classroom course! irrelevant!
D. Some publishing companies print free newspapers and make money only on advertisements. the source of making money for publishing company is out of scope
E. A high majority of people read newspaper while traveling when they lack access to internet this is an opposite answer. it strengthen the argument by showing that reading newspapers will not decline anyhow. because those who read newspapers do not have alternative method of online access to e-papers.
Hi Bibinaz
Thanks for your detailed response! I loved the way you've approached the question, especially the way you've noted down the important details and applied pre-thinking before explaining the answer choices.
As you've rightly captured, the argument forms an analogy between the following cases:
Case 1: wide accessibility of e-learning courses ...>no decline in the classroom courses' enrollment
Case 2: free e-paper--> will not lead to a decline in the willingness of people to buy newspapers
B. A large proportion of students who take online course also enroll in classroom course" I took this as a contender but notice the language of this option.. a large majority.. it means there are still students who just enroll in online courses. if similar case happens for newspapers, the number of those people who are willing to read newspapers will decline! it weakens the argument "
Now if we look at option B, it only talks about case 2. It doesn't tell us whether it is similar or different to case 1. According to your assumption, the correct answer choice should show that given
cases are not similar. The option doesn't have any impact on the assumption. Also, the argument doesn't say that the
number of people will decline. It's about the willingness to buy newspaper.
"but it's effect is tangential and consider that this option has no touch with the analogy in the argument. it does not give good reason to imagine why people who read e-papers will continue to read newspapers!"
You're right! The option doesn't make any connection with the analogy in the argument. It just tells us that both e-courses and classroom course can co-exist. Thus this choice is irrelevant.
Does it make sense?
Once again, I loved reading your explanation!
Thanks!
Dolly
close
Updated on: 23 May 2014, 05:29
46%
(02:03)
wrong 
