Akela
Most small children are flat-footed. This failure of the foot to assume its natural arch, if it persists past early childhood can sometimes result in discomfort and even pain later in life. Traditionally, flat-footedness in children has been treated by having the children wear special shoes that give extra support to the foot, in order to foster the development of the arch.
Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the efficacy of the traditional treatment described above?
(A) Many small children who have normal feet wear the same special shoes as those worn by flat-footed children.
(B) Studies of flat-footed adults show that flat feet are subject to fewer stress fractures than are feet with unusually high arches.
(C) Although most children’s flat-footedness is corrected by the time the children reach puberty, some people remain flat-footed for life.
(D) Flat-footed children who do not wear the special shoes are as likely to develop natural arches as are flat-footed children who wear the special shoes.
(E) Some children who are not flat-footed have hip and lower leg bones that are rotated excessively either inward or outward.
Source: LSAT
Dear
Akela,
I'm happy to respond.
This is a great LSAT LR question, and I believe it would work well as a GMAT CR question too.
Which weakens the argument?
(A)
Many small children who have normal feet wear the same special shoes as those worn by flat-footed children.
Hmm. This is about helping the flat-footed children. What the children with normal feet wear is out of scope. This is incorrect.
(B)
Studies of flat-footed adults show that flat feet are subject to fewer stress fractures than are feet with unusually high arches.
OK, even though flat-footedness in adults is bad, high arches are even worse. This too is out of scope. Incorrect.
(C)
Although most children’s flat-footedness is corrected by the time the children reach puberty, some people remain flat-footed for life.
Hmm. Those people who remain flat-footed for life--did they wear the special shoes when they were kids? Would those shoes have helped them? Or did they wear the special shoes, and the shoes didn't help them? Depending on the answers to these questions, this could be a strengthener or a weakener, but we don't know. This is incorrect.
(D)
Flat-footed children who do not wear the special shoes are as likely to develop natural arches as are flat-footed children who wear the special shoes.
Bingo! If children who don't wear the special shoes still develop natural arches, then what's the point of the shoes? This is a devastating blow to the argument, a very strong weakener.
(E)
Some children who are not flat-footed have hip and lower leg bones that are rotated excessively either inward or outward.
Children who are not flat-footed--out of scope. This is incorrect.
The only possible answer is
(D).
Does all this make sense?
Mike