Carl is clearly an incompetent detective. He has solved a smaller perc

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The structure of the argument is simple, and it is easy to see why the premise does not undeniably prove the conclusion. The answers contain several predictable forms, and this is the type of question you should quickly destroy. You do not need to spend a great deal of time trying to find a specific pre-phrased answer because there are so many possibilities, and the answers can be eliminated without a great deal of time spent considering which are Losers and which are Contenders. The stimulus uses a premise about success rate to form a conclusion about Carl’s competency as a detective. Ask yourself—does the premise prove the conclusion? No, because there are many factors that could have affected Carl’s performance. In this sense, the stimulus has incomplete information, and we should try to discover a relevant piece of information in one of the answer choices that will shed more light on why Carl’s success rate is so low. Use this knowledge to make a general pre-phrase that indicates you are looking for a piece of information that shows Carl’s success rate is not as low as it seems or that other factors limited Carl’s performance.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer. We discover that Carl receives the hardest cases, and one would expect that the hardest cases would yield a lower success rate. Notice that this answer does not attack the premises. Even though they are still true, the conclusion is undermined by the new evidence. This is typical of most Weaken questions answers—the premises are not addressed and the focus is on the conclusion.

Answer choice (B): This answer is irrelevant. It tries to use the opinion of others about Carl’s performance in one capacity to refute facts about his performance in another capacity. Personalize the answer—is this the answer you would offer to weaken the argument against Carl if he was your friend?

Answer choice (C): This is an Opposite answer that strengthens the claim that Carl is incompetent by showing that Carl was not deprived of certain resources for solving cases.

Answer choice (D): This is another Opposite answer that strengthens the claim that Carl is incompetent. This time, the answer shows that Carl has a previous record of poor performance.

Answer choice (E): This answer goes beyond the scope of the argument by discussing the promotions of other officers. These promotions do not impact Carl’s job and no information is given about Carl’s promotions. If you are thinking that perhaps Carl’s poor performance is a result of dissatisfaction over the promotions of others, then you are assuming too much.