Bunuel wrote:
In Paproland, since the invention of the printing press in 1440, sales of print books have gone nowhere but up. Unfortunately, due to the invention of the internet and computers, print books have seen a steady decline lately. Now with the arrival of eBooks, which are easier to access and cheaper than the regular book, print books are bound to soon become things of the past in the country and eBooks will become the new “future”.
Which of the following most seriously weakens the argument?
A. In an effort to generate demand, some publishers have started selling books at an extremely low prices, prices at which they incur a loss.
B. Import of cheaper paper from China has reduced the price of books significantly over the last 3 years.
C. Regardless of the convenience offered by eBooks, people who own libraries are unlikely to get rid of paper books that they currently own.
D. People who prefer eBooks are not likely to purchase paper-based books.
E. The arrival of eBooks has reignited interest in reading books and many people after reading an eBook have started to purchase the corresponding paper version.
(A) selling books at extremely low prices - Not within the scope, stimulus talks about print books vs ebooks and price is not a concern.
(B) Import of cheaper paper from China - Out of scope , doesn't weaken the conclusion " print books are bound to soon become things of the past" and ebooks will be the future
(C) Paper books + ve - Keep for now!
(D) No way to weaken the conclusion " print books are bound to soon become things of the past" and ebooks will be the future.
(E) Keep it , looks good.
Between (C) and (E).
(C) Talks about "people who own libraries " and (E) talks about all those people who are interested in reading. Obviously if we carefully consider no of people having a library < No of people who are interested in reading (Which can be safely be assumed, as per logical thinking)
Thus, (E) wins over (C) , as (E) weakens more, answer must be (E)