coreyander wrote:
Hollyhocks raised in greenhouses by the Texas University botany school grow an average of 20 centimeters per year, while hollyhocks raised outdoors by the Florida University botany school grow an average of 14 centimeters per year. The annual growth rate of the average hollyhock is 17 centimeters per year. If a hollyhock originally planted outside by the Florida University botany school is transplanted and moved to the greenhouses run by the Texas University botany school, the hollyhock's growth rate will be greater than it would have been.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the argument above?
A) Some botanists believe that greenhouses are detrimental to the growth rate of transplanted hollyhocks.
B) The faculty of Florida University mistakenly alleged that statistics produced by their botany department were inaccurate.
C) The growth rate of the hollyhocks in the greenhouses of Texas University's botany school is due to the particular genetically-altered hybrid grown there. Correct Answer
D) At least 15 percent of the hollyhocks grown outdoors at Florida University grow an average of 19 centimeters per year.
E) The greenhouses of the Texas University botany school use a special high nitrogen fertilizer that increases the average growth rate of hollyhocks.
Same Stimulus with Strengthen Question:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/hollyhocks-r ... l#p2350784This a weaken the argument type of question. The last sentence of the passage is the conclusion of the argument. In order to weaken the conclusion, we need to identify an option that adds information to show that the hollyhocks' growth rate may not be greater after transplantation from Florida University to the Texas University’s greenhouses than it would have been if they had been left where they were.
Option A weakens the conclusion in a roundabout way, but does not establish the connection between hollyhocks grown outside by Florida University that are being transplanted to the greenhouses in Texas university. The greenhouses and transplanted hollyhocks could be anywhere.
So, Option A does not provide sufficient evidence to weaken the argument.
Option B is irrelevant. Even if we accept that the statistics were inaccurate, we don’t know which statistics the option is referring to. If we assume that the statistics refers to the growth rate of the hollyhocks grown by Florida University, the inaccuracy could be taken either way – that the growth rate is higher or lower. Since this option does not give us clear information, the option is incorrect.
Option D is also irrelevant. It does not add any new information to show that the growth rate of the hollyhocks may not be greater after transplantation.
In most weaken the argument questions, there are one or two options that do the opposite, i.e., strengthen the argument. Option E strengthens the argument by showing that the growth rate may actually be higher once the hollyhocks are transplanted.
Therefore, Option C, which provides information to show that the higher growth rate in the greenhouses of Texas University has nothing to with the environment in the greenhouses, but with the plant itself, weakens the argument. If the hollyhocks planted in the greenhouses are a genetically altered hybrid, their growth rate would be higher than that of normal plants.
Therefore, Option C is the one that weakens the argument most seriously.
Jayanthi Kumar.