Lead water main pipes deliver water to homes and businesses all over the city of Redmond. Because of health concerns related to lead, specially trained workers are required to repair the water main pipes, and without repairs, the water main pipes would eventually cease to deliver water effectively. Therefore, taxpayers in the city of Redmond must continue to provide funds to train workers to repair lead-containing materials safely.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument above?

A) When water main pipes cease to function effectively, they can be left in place without raising health concerns.

B)Although lead water main pipes are a necessary part of the delivery of water in Redmond, some residents also obtain a portion of their water from wells.

C)In response to public demands, the Redmond city council has cut funding for the training of repair workers and increased spending on the city's mass transit system.

D)Repair of water main pipes requires workers to spend long periods of time underground, which increases the expense of training these workers.

E)The development of a safe and durable material for pipes has made repairing lead water main pipes more costly and less practical than replacing them.
_________________

Thriving for CHANGE

I think its clear e...C is a well set trap. we have to weaken the conclusion that "Provide money to train the workers"
Hence , E which says why not buy new low cost durable pipes is the correct pipes.

Aristocrat pls post OA and OE>>>>>>

Question asks to weaken the conclsuion not to explain it So D cannot be the answer

The premise of the argument is: "without repairs, the water main pipes would eventually cease to deliver water effectively."

The conclusion of the argument is :"Therefore, taxpayers in the city of Redmond must continue to provide funds to train workers to repair lead-containing materials safely."

To weaken an argument you have to either :

(i) Weaken the premise or
(ii) Weaken the connection between the premise and the conclusion.

E does (i) and weakens the premise because it says one can do away with repairs but D doesn't say that repairs can be done away with and it also doesn't weaken the connection between the premise and the conclusion. Therefore D is not correct.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
sravna@gmail.com

Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com

E

I believe D is incorrect because it does not take the full picture into consideration. It is kind of like the argument that a car dealer wants you to purchase the most expensive car so that they can make a larger profit, when in reality, their cost for that car is also more than the cost for a less expensive car, so they could theoretically actually earn less money on the most expensive car. Answer choice D only considers the cost of training. The cost of training could or could not be worth it when one considers the alternatives.

Answer choice E is correct because it gives a reason not to continue training workers. No matter what it costs to train the workers, it is cheaper to replace the lead pipes 100% of the time.
_________________

If my post helped you, please consider giving me kudos.

Lead water main pipes deliver water to homes and businesses all over the city of Redmond. Because of health concerns related to lead, specially trained workers are required to repair the water main pipes, and without repairs, the water main pipes would eventually cease to deliver water effectively. Therefore, taxpayers in the city of Redmond must continue to provide funds to train workers to repair lead-containing materials safely.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument above?

A) When water main pipes cease to function effectively, they can be left in place without raising health concerns.

B)Although lead water main pipes are a necessary part of the delivery of water in Redmond, some residents also obtain a portion of their water from wells.

C)In response to public demands, the Redmond city council has cut funding for the training of repair workers and increased spending on the city's mass transit system.

D)Repair of water main pipes requires workers to spend long periods of time underground, which increases the expense of training these workers.

E)The development of a safe and durable material for pipes has made repairing lead water main pipes more costly and less practical than replacing them.


why not B???
it says to some people lead pipes are not required...so why they have to pay the tax.

Br//Suryav

if repairing something is more expensive than buying a new one. Than what should one do . answer is E.

First step in a Weaken Argument is to identify the conclusion. in this case it is that the city must continue to provide funds to train workers. The reasons for this conclusion is that the pipes need specially trained workers to repair them and that if they aren't repaired they will cease to deliver water. Since we are trying to weaken, we need to find an answer that gives a reason why we would not need to contine to provide training.
A) If we can leave the pipes in the ground that is great but doesn't address getting water if they break so it isn't the answer.
B) the word some means that this only applies to part of the population and can't be the answer because some people still need to get water from the pipes.
c) having to stop spending money somewhere else doesn't weaken the fact that you have to spend money in this case.
D) Increasing the expense does not change its necessity.
E) This weakens becuase if we can get water more cheaply without these pipes then we don't need to train new workers to repair them. it is the correct answer.