KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE
The question stem asks for something that reduces the likelihood that the officials’ program was effective. Thus, this is a Weaken question.

STEP 2: UNTANGLE THE STIMULUS
The city officials instituted a program that called for reduced water usage, and the water levels did return to normal. The author concludes that the water reduction program was responsible for this result.

STEP 3: PREDICT THE ANSWER
This a classic example of an unsupported cause-and-effect argument. The author assumes that the program caused the levels to return to normal and that nothing else was responsible. Your prediction should be along the lines of “something other than the program led to the increased water level.”

STEP 4: EVALUATE THE CHOICES
(B) matches this prediction. It doesn’t outright state what the other factor was. However, if other reservoirs in the area recovered without a water usage program in place, then some other factor must have been involved. (A) makes an irrelevant comparison between this year and last year. Even if last year’s levels were higher, it’s still possible that the program helped the reservoirs return to normal this year. (C) is another irrelevant comparison: as long as people reduced water usage overall, the program still could have worked. (D) suggests that there could have been a more effective plan, but that doesn’t mean that the city officials’ plan was ineffective. And the timing of the drop in water usage, in (E), does not affect the argument that the plan caused the reduction and that this reduction caused reservoir levels to rise.
_________________

Conclusion - Reducing the water usage by 20 percent caused the water level at all three reservoirs returned to normal.
To weaken - Any choice that breaks this causal relationship.

(A) The current water level in the reservoirs is lower than it was at the same time last year.
The stimulus says "reservoirs returned to normal." it does not matter if the level is higher or lower as long as it's normal.
(B)Other nearby reservoirs recovered from lower water levels this year, even though those reservoirs provide water to cities that did not enact water restriction policies.
This breaks the causal relationship, suggesting that the policy of reducing the water usage did not help reservoirs recovering from lower water levels.
(C) Residents reduced their water usage for lawn maintenance significantly more than they did for washing clothes.
How did the residents reduced the usage is not the concern.
(D)Imposing stiff penalties on residents who did not conserve water would have resulted in even higher water levels in the reservoirs.
Bringing in a better option does not mitigate the impact of existing option.
(E)Water usage in the city dropped steadily during the first two weeks of the program before leveling off.
The way the reduction in the water usage was followed does not make any impact on the conclusion.

B

You are asked to weaken the argument that
City official encouragement of water usage reduction = water level at reservoirs normal

There are two clear assumptions being made in this argument. First that the city official encouragement caused reduction in water usage and second that reduction in water usage caused water levels at reservoirs to come back to normal. To break either of these two relationships you can find
1. Encouragement by officials to reduce water usage did not actually reduce water usage i.e. there were other factors contributing to reducing the water usage
OR
2. There were other factors contributing to returning the water level at the reservoirs to its normal level

In the options given, Option B would directly indicate point 2 above.
If the water level at reservoirs in a place where there was no such reduction in water usage were also rising then that clearly indicates there are other factors behind the rise.

Correct Answer => B

Earlier this year, our city’s three main reservoirs had unusually low water levels. As a result, city officials initiated a program that encouraged residents to reduce their water usage by 20 percent. Since the program was announced, the water level at all three reservoirs has returned to normal. Our city officials should be applauded for their role in preventing a crisis.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the efficacy of the officials’ program?


(A). The current water level in the reservoirs is lower than it was at the same time last year. Incorrect

it conflicts with argument, already know water level returned to normal this year

(B). Other nearby reservoirs recovered from lower water levels this year, even though those reservoirs provide water to cities that did not enact water restriction policies.Correct

normal water level is not for restriction policies, natural way water level returned to normal level

(C). Residents reduced their water usage for lawn maintenance significantly more than they did for washing clothes. Incorrect

support argument

(D). Imposing stiff penalties on residents who did not conserve water would have resulted in even higher water levels in the reservoirs. Incorrect

support argument

(E). Water usage in the city dropped steadily during the first two weeks of the program before leveling off. Incorrect

support argument

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the efficacy of the officials’ program?


(A). The current water level in the reservoirs is lower than it was at the same time last year. Not our answer (Goes against the stimulus)

(B). Other nearby reservoirs recovered from lower water levels this year, even though those reservoirs provide water to cities that did not enact water restriction policies. This is our answer (It clearly shows that despite the program there were other cities that didn't have to face water restriction and have their reservoirs recover from low water levels)

(C). Residents reduced their water usage for lawn maintenance significantly more than they did for washing clothes. Irrelevant (We do not want to know what residents did to reduce their water wastage.)

(D). Imposing stiff penalties on residents who did not conserve water would have resulted in even higher water levels in the reservoirs. Irrelevant (What was done, what could have been done is irrelevant now.)

(E). Water usage in the city dropped steadily during the first two weeks of the program before leveling off. Irrelevant (The amount of water usage that dropped is not our concern.)

The OA is B.

Pre-thinking: Since the program was announced, the water level at all three reservoirs has returned to normal. It means, there is relation between Action (save water program) and Result (Water level back to normal in reservoir) .

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the efficacy of the officials’ program?

(A). The current water level in the reservoirs is lower than it was at the same time last year. -> It doesn't connect with the program. Incorrect.

(B). Other nearby reservoirs recovered from lower water levels this year, even though those reservoirs provide water to cities that did not enact water restriction policies. -> It means, without programs in place, water level came back to Normal in reservoir. So, what is the use of such programs. Let's keep it.

(C). Residents reduced their water usage for lawn maintenance significantly more than they did for washing clothes. -> It means program is working. Incorrect.

(D). Imposing stiff penalties on residents who did not conserve water would have resulted in even higher water levels in the reservoirs. -> It is another way to get program working.

(E). Water usage in the city dropped steadily during the first two weeks of the program before leveling off. -> Incorrect. No idea, how the program is impacting water saving.

So, I think B.

B is the answer. There is some other causal factor responsible for helping restore the water levels.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

imo B
Earlier this year, our city’s three main reservoirs had unusually low water levels. As a result, city officials initiated a program that encouraged residents to reduce their water usage by 20 percent. Since the program was announced, the water level at all three reservoirs has returned to normal. Our city officials should be applauded for their role in preventing a crisis.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the efficacy of the officials’ program?


Even though there is restriction in the water usage , there must be some other reason in the option to believe that the official program didn't work as expected .


(A). The current water level in the reservoirs is lower than it was at the same time last year.

--current water level wrt water level of last year is Out of scope

(B). Other nearby reservoirs recovered from lower water levels this year, even though those reservoirs provide water to cities that did not enact water restriction policies.

Correct - This gives us a reason that there must be another reason .
(C). Residents reduced their water usage for lawn maintenance significantly more than they did for washing clothes.
-- -- Out of scope

(D). Imposing stiff penalties on residents who did not conserve water would have resulted in even higher water levels in the reservoirs.
-- Again out of scope

(E). Water usage in the city dropped steadily during the first two weeks of the program before leveling off.
-- Doesn't contribute to the argument .
_________________

IMO B

Earlier this year, our city’s three main reservoirs had unusually low water levels. As a result, city officials initiated a program that encouraged residents to reduce their water usage by 20 percent. Since the program was announced, the water level at all three reservoirs has returned to normal. Our city officials should be applauded for their role in preventing a crisis.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the efficacy of the officials’ program?

Cause: city officials initiated a program that encouraged residents to reduce their water usage by 20 percent
Effect : preventing a crisis.
To weaken, look for an option that mentions either of the below:
1. Introduce an external factor that proves how the program initiated by officials wasnt the actual cause
2. Prove the reverse of Cause -> Effect is true (maybe on the lines of how citizens became conscious and hence reduced water usage)

(A). The current water level in the reservoirs is lower than it was at the same time last year.
Irrelevant

(B). Other nearby reservoirs recovered from lower water levels this year, even though those reservoirs provide water to cities that did not enact water restriction policies.
In line with our pre-thinking. Correct.

(C). Residents reduced their water usage for lawn maintenance significantly more than they did for washing clothes.
Not weakening the conclusion.

(D). Imposing stiff penalties on residents who did not conserve water would have resulted in even higher water levels in the reservoirs.
Not weakening the conclusion.

(E). Water usage in the city dropped steadily during the first two weeks of the program before leveling off.
Not weakening the conclusion.