Quote:
Party leaders feared that the recent addition of conservative planks to the party platform would diminish the popularity of the party among younger voters. Some predicted that the number of party members younger than 25 would decline, or, at best, stay the same. This fear, though, has proven to be unfounded: of all party members, the percentage younger than 25 is higher than ever. Rather than hurt the party, conservatism has helped attract more young voters to the party.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the author's conclusion?
A. Many party leaders are uncomfortable with the political direction the party is taking, for both political and ideological reasons.
B. Party candidates continue to suffer defeats when running on the party platform.
C. The number of party members older than 25 declined significantly after the announcement of the new conservative platform.
D. In the last election, the ratio of voters under the age of 25 who voted for the party to all voters under the age of 25 increased.
E. Over half the population of potential voters under the age of 25 never vote.
IMO the answer is
Option C.
We see that the argument talks about the introduction of conservative planks to the party platform, and as a result of this addition, a fear of losing out on the popularity of young voters. From here, the argument introduces the premise that "This fear, though, has proven to be unfounded: of all party members, the percentage younger than 25 is higher than ever", and concludes by saying "Rather than hurt the party, conservatism has helped attract more young voters to the party." (The conclusion is supported by the why test, where the premise answers why the author believes the conclusion is true)
Since this is a weaken question, by attacking the assumption, the correct answer must widen the gap between the premise and the conclusion.
Option A: "Many party leaders are uncomfortable with the political direction the party is taking, for both political and ideological reasons."
This option doesn't particularly widen the gap. The option only tells us that the party leaders (young and old alike) are not happy with the direction the party is taking. Nothing about this answer choice tells us that
more young voters are NOT attracted to the party.
Option B: "Party candidates continue to suffer defeats when running on the party platform."
Similar to Option A, Option B tells us nothing about more young voters NOT being attracted to the party. The only logical implication is that most voters (young and old alike) are unhappy with the party.
Option C [Correct Answer]: "The number of party members older than 25 declined significantly after the announcement of the new conservative platform."
This answers directly attacks the assumption and widen the gap. The answer choice does this by attacking the premise and making us question if the number of young party members has actually increased. The logical implication is that older party members have left, and as a result only the percentage of young members in the party has increased, not the actual numbers. This could directly mean that the conservatism
has NOT helped attract more young voters to the party and it has definitely not shown increased signs of popularity among the young.
Option D: "In the last election, the ratio of voters under the age of 25 who voted for the party to all voters under the age of 25 increased."
This option only strengthens the conclusion by saying that the number of young voters has only increased.
Option E: "Over half the population of potential voters under the age of 25 never vote."
This option is irrelevant/Out of Scope. Really doesn't matter if over half the population of potential voters under the age of 25 never vote. We are only interested in the number of young voters increasing.
Hope you guys found this explanation helpful.
- Cheers