We have a theory that P and M are significantly reduced at the age of 80 compared to 30. To break that theory a study says that a card game - specifically designed to test P and M - says there was no difference, though. How do we still counter that counter? You could say the methods to test P and M were questionable. You could say that the younger people were distracted by something in the room that day. You could also say (E) - that you only need a bare minimum amount of P and M to play so it's not testing your MAX P and M or Efficient P and M.
It is widely believed that by age 80, perception and memory are each significantly reduced from their functioning levels at age 30. However, a recent study showed no difference in the abilities of 80-year-olds and 30-year-olds to play a card game devised to test perception and memory. Therefore, the belief that perception and memory are significantly reduced by age 80 is false.
The reasoning above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to consider the possibility that
(A) the study’s card game does not test cognitive abilities other than perception and memory
Irrelevant.
(B) card games are among the most difficult cognitive tasks one can attempt to perform
Irrelevant, I daresay. But this would strengthen the argument we are seeking to criticize.
(C) perception and memory are interrelated in ways of which we are not currently aware
This is a 'but there could be something else afoot' answer choice. Not the best criticism, right?
(D) the belief that 80-year-olds’ perception and memory are reduced results from prejudice against senior citizens
Clearly out.
(E) playing the study’s card game perfectly requires fairly low levels of perception and memory
Bingo and we're done.
Some Kudos would be nice

5 in a post gets me some points!