Traditionally, Value Investing Based Mutual Fund (VBMF), a stock-based

Why is option C not correct here?

raditionally, Value Investing Based Mutual Fund (VBMF), a stock-based mutual fund, has been considered a safe haven of stock investing. However, this perception has been shattered last year since VBMF has lost as much as 24% of its capitalization. Therefore, investors need to reassess their decision parameters since, clearly, by investing in VBMF, one can lose at least as much money as one can lose by investing in any other mutual fund.

Which of the following statements most seriously weakens the author’s argument?

A. While most Mutual funds have lost money, some more than 30%, hedge funds have been extremely profitable last year.
B. The stock market has declined by 30% over the last year.
C. Most stock based mutual funds have lost more than 25% last year.
D. People who have invested in gold instead of in mutual funds have lost only 10% since the value of gold has depreciated much.
E. VBMFs provide the additional advantage of dividend payouts that other mutual funds do not provide.

The bone of contention is between options B & E. B weakens the argument in that that since stock market has decliend by 30% hence in the flow of that vbmf has also declined. However option E clearly states that even after 24% decline the investors can reduce this decline by getting annual dividends which other stock options do not provide. Hence E most seriously weakens the conclusion

The doubt is in the choices C and E. C compared to E weakens the argument much more

Bunuel could u please provide clarification as to why E is the answer and not C?

Yeah, this question needs work. In general, we should never have to play the game of "this choice weakens more." On a weaken question, one answer should weaken and the rest should really not weaken at all.

I believe C isn't the answer because of the following reasons:

- The question stem ends with "...by investing in VBMF, one can lose at least as much money as one can lose by investing in any other mutual fund"

The comparison is between VBMF (a stock based fund) and 'any other mutual fund' (including stock based funds, debt insturment based funds, and so on)

- Option C talks only about stock based mutual funds. But that's not all we are comparing to.

And hence, it isn't sufficient to weaken the arguement because the scope of arguement is broader than what C talks about.

Please add to/correct my reasoning if required.