pikachu9
hey! i also have the same doubt .
pikachu9 quiaitaque Your analysis of choice E has identified something true: if spiders live in inaccessible places, they would be
harder to catch. However, the conclusion states that continued production
"must inevitably" lead to extinction.
Why Choice E Doesn't Truly Weaken:Think about it this way: If we need spider webs for the drug, and the only way to get webs is by catching spiders (which is what the argument assumes), then:
- Inaccessible location → Takes longer to catch 1,000 spiders
- But we still need to catch them to get their webs
- Result: Extinction happens slowly, but still inevitably
Choice E essentially says "extinction will take 50 years instead of 5 years" - but that doesn't challenge the claim that it's
inevitable.
Why Choice D Actually Breaks the Argument:Choice D reveals that spiders
abandon their old webs each night. This means:
- We can collect abandoned webs
- We never need to harm any spider
- Production can continue forever without affecting spider population
This completely destroys the "inevitable extinction" conclusion - there's now
zero connection between drug production and spider harm.
Strategic Framework - "Degree vs. Existence" Test:When evaluating weakeners in CR, ask yourself:
- Does this choice challenge the existence of the problem? (Strong weakener)
- Or does it only affect the degree/speed of the problem? (Not a true weakener)
Choice D challenges existence (no extinction at all), while Choice E only affects degree (slower extinction).
Hope this helps clarify the doubt!