Many parents rigorously organize their children’s activities during pl

The correct answer is option E.

Understanding the passage
- Many parents rigorously organize their children's activities during playtime.
- Their belief: This leads to better cognitive development of their children.
- Conclusion/Author's claim: The above belief is incorrect.
- Author's logic:
1. Thorough structuring of a child's playtime will not produce a creative and resourceful child.
2. Analogy used by the author: Expecting a good novel (cognitive development) to be produced by someone (child) who was told exactly what the plot and characters must be (no creativity, resourcefulness - as everything has been defined by the parents).

Question Stem:
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

i.e. what is the flaw in the author's argument?

Analysis
The author's conclusion is that the belief of the parents is wrong. What belief? the belief that structuring the playtime of their children leads to better cognitive development (of the children).

The author's logic is based on the point that such structuring hampers 2 aspects
1. Creativity
2. Resourcefulness

And the author is equating these 2 aspects to cognitive development. i.e. as per the author, without creativity and resourcefulness, cognitive development is not possible.

This is the flaw. What if cognitive development is possible even without creativity and resourcefulness being developed?

Now, let us look at the options.

(A) It takes for granted that if something is conducive to a certain goal it cannot also be conducive to some other goal.
Very interesting choice. Lets say -
Goal 1 = Cognitive Development (say CD)
Goal 2 - Creativity (C) and Resourcefulness (R)

What this option says: If structuring of playtime is conducive for Goal 1, it cannot also be conducive for Goal 2. This is true as per the author's logic. But, the author's argument is that CD (Goal 1) will not be achieved. This option only tells us that Goal 2 will not be achieved, it does not tell us why Goal 1 may still be achieved despite Goal 2 not happening. Hence, it is not the flaw in the argument!

(B) It overlooks the possibility that many children enjoy rigorously organized playtime.

Irrelevant. Whether children enjoy the structuring/organisation of their playtime has nothing to do with whether it results in their cognitive development. CD can happen even without the child enjoying the structure.

(C) It takes a necessary condition for something’s enhancing a child’s creativity and resourcefulness to be a sufficient condition for its doing so.

Interestingly worded but actually has nothing to do with the author's logic. From the argument, all we know is that structure is bad for creativity and resourcefulness (C and R). We cannot even be sure that a lack of structure would be good for enhancing a child's C and R.
Even assuming that an unstructured playtime if good for enhancing a child's C and R, is it a necessary condition? Is it a sufficient condition? We actually don't know; for all we know - it is not even a necessary condition, forget being a sufficient condition.
We are not even sure about necessary and sufficient here - this option can definitely not be the correct answer choice!

(D) It fails to consider the possibility that being able to write a good novel requires something more than creativity and resourcefulness.
Writing a good novel was used as an analogy by the author to illustrate his logic, it is not the real mainstay of the argument. This option can be safely rejected as it is actually not relevant to the argument.

(E) It fails to consider the possibility that something could enhance a child’s overall cognitive development without enhancing the child’s creativity and resourcefulness.

This is as per our analysis. The author fails to consider that CD can be enhanced without development of C and R. Correct choice.

Hope this helps.