venmic wrote:
A certain baseball team has just completed its season. In stadiums that seat 20,000 or fewer people, the team averaged 1 “home run” -- a ball hit across the field of play and over the opposing fence, called the outfield wall -- per game. In stadiums that seat between 20,000 and 40,000 people, the team averaged 2 home runs per game. Finally, in stadiums that seat 40,000 or more people, the team averaged 3 home runs per game. Obviously, the excitement of playing in front of large crowds motivated the team to hit more home runs.
Assuming that all stadiums during the season were filled to capacity, which of the following, if true, most undermines the argument above?
(A) The team's leading home run hitter hit more home runs in mid-sized stadiums than in large stadiums.
(B) The fans in the larger stadiums often cheered against the team.
(C) The team averaged only 2 home runs per game when playing in the league’s largest stadium.
(D) In order to create seating for the additional fans, the outfield walls in the larger stadiums were constructed closer to where the batter stands.
(E) The team’s announcer cited crowd noise as a major motivator for the team.
Why E cannot be the answer it implies there is an alternate cause for the conclusion?
I guess you are clear why (D) weakens the conclusion. Because the outfield walls are closer i.e. the distance to be covered is less, therefore, the batters hit more home runs.
Now, as for your question why (E) is not correct - there are two reasons - the team announcer cited crowd noise as a motivator but it doesn't make his statement true. The only thing we have to take to be true is that the announcer cited this. Whether it actually is true i.e. whether actually crowd noise is a motivator or not, we don't know.
Also, (E) actually supports the conclusion, if at all. The conclusion says that excitement of playing in front of large crowds motivates the team and (E) says that the noise the large crowd creates motivates the team. They are related, aren't they - larger the crowd, more the noise, more the excitement.
I would like to explain the first reason a little more:
Say there is an argument where the conclusion is "the politicians are corrupt because they are not paid well" and you need to strengthen it.
Let's say one of the options says, "my friend said that politicians are corrupt because they are not paid well"
This isn't what you are looking for. Just because someone else said it too, doesn't make it stronger. It is again someone's opinion. You are looking for facts that can strengthen the conclusion.
_________________
Karishma Bansal - ANA PREP
*SUPER SUNDAYS!* - FREE Access to ALL Resources EVERY Sunday
REGISTER at ANA PREP
(Includes access to Study Modules, Concept Videos, Practice Questions and LIVE Classes)
YouTube Channel
youtube.com/karishma.anaprep