aaba wrote:
A cache of surveillance equipment maps mountainous terrain and predicts troop movements. Since the equipment can only be reprogrammed onsite, local technicians are required to reprogram them. Without this reprogramming, the equipment would eventually become obsolete. Therefore, efforts to hire local technicians remain necessary.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument above?
Conclusion: Highlighted above. We need weaken the argument with something like "local hiring is not required"/"There is dependency on the company and not local talent" etc. A Equipment that provides unreliable data due to obsolescence can be easily identified and disregarded.
- Incorrect. Irrelevant information. Not weakening the argument.B While surveillance equipment is essential for predicting troop movements, military planners also utilize digital simulations to predict troop movements.
- Incorrect. Irrelevant information. Not weakening the argument.C The agency, in response to security concerns, has resolved to recruit fewer local technicians and allocate more resources towards training special operatives.
- Incorrect. Recruiting few or more is not the question here. Even "recruiting few local" is considered as "recruiting local" which argument says. D Reprogramming surveillance equipment demands knowledge of classified access codes, which increases the time that must be spent educating local technicians.
- Incorrect. First part of the sentence is ok but the second part on timing makes it wrong. E The inevitable deterioration of the surveillance equipment makes reprogramming them more challenging and less reliable than depositing modern, upgraded caches of equipment onsite.
- Correct. If surveillance equipment deterioration is inevitable and fixing it is more challenging and less reliable then it makes sense to have modern, upgraded caches of equipment onsite. If we replace old ones with upgraded equipment then there is no need to hire local talent. Answer: (E).