Each bank in the town of La Rinconada has only a single set of locking

I'm responding to a PM on this one. I will start by saying the correct answer will be more logical to people who live in climates where double doors are used to maintain inside temperatures, but you can get to the answer by working through your CR process.

Assumptions fill in the logical gaps between premises and conclusions. If you want to weaken an argument you need to attack an assumption. In this question the premises state that Inverness has double doors and La Rinconada has single doors. The conclusion states that the double doors were for robbery prevention against Inverness' higher robbery rate. How do we get from double doors to robbery? We are assuming that the double doors are a method for preventing robbery (this is the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion).

Answer choices A, D, and E can quickly be eliminated for irrelevance to the issue of doors and robbery prevention. Since the correct answer is B, let's first analyze C. Choice C states that the double doors can be locked remotely. That seems to strengthen the assumption that the double doors are for robbery prevention. That choice feels very relevant to the argument but it's relevant in the wrong direction. We are trying to weaken the argument so we have to attack the assumption that doors are for robbery prevention, not strengthen it.

That only leaves us with choice B. Again, I will admit this requires a bit of a mental stretch for some, but can you think of the impact that climate has on door selection or use? Sure, when it's warm I sometimes leave my door open, but when it's cold or stormy I will absolutely close my door. This choice does provide information to suggest that the double doors may not have been installed for robbery prevention and instead as a protection against climate.

Don't be too quick to call some answer choices like this one out of scope. These questions can introduce new information not previously stated in the argument. The question is whether that new information attacks an assumption and therefore weakens the argument.

KW