A) Holding the job of a corporate executive causes people to develop “take charge” personality
traits.

A reverses the causal relationship.

The argument: people with "take charge" personalities are likely to become executives. How do we weaken? By showing that people who become executive do not necessarily have "take charge" personalities.

A) Holding the job of a corporate executive causes people to develop “take charge” personality
traits.

Bullys-eye: having an executive job makes someone have a "take charge" personality. That is, it is the job that causes the "take charge" personality, and not the fact that "take charge" people are drawn to the executive job.

b) When working on charitable or community projects, corporate executives often use their
ability to make decisions and lead people to make those projects successful.

Does not relate.

c) Some people who are not executives have stronger “take charge” personalities than some
people who currently serve as corporate executives.

This one is tempting. But it doesn't really weaken the argument. After all, the argument is that "take charge" people are the only ones that the become executives, not that the only job "take charge" people have is that of an executive.


d) Many people who aspire to become executives exhibit different management styles in their
current jobs.

Does not relate to those who are executives (aspiring and actually being are two different things).

e) The executives that the researcher studied were often unsuccessful when they tried to
manage their family activities as they do their business activities.

Totally unrelated.

Hope that helps .
_________________

Christopher Lele
Magoosh Test Prep