The Georgetown Public School recommends that all its students take an

Its B ..... Student that are already intelligent play chess.So they performed better in test from others.

Hello Experts,

Isn't A also weakening the conclusion?
If some students who performed well in tests of general intelligence do not play chess, then the school's decision to ask all students to play chess in order to boost the intelligence may not be successful

Please correct me if I am wrong

Choice B.

The cause and effect relationship is reversed.

Its not because of playing chess that the student are intelligent but because the they are intelligent, they play chess.

Official Explanation

Answer: B

This is a classic case of correlation being confused with causation. Just because those students who play chess perform better in tests of intelligence does not necessarily imply that it is because of chess that these students have become intelligent. It could very well be that since these students are intelligent, they like to play chess, that is, the causality could actually be the other way around. B points this out and is the correct answer.

(A) The argument does not contend that playing chess is the only way to boost intelligence. There could be other ways as well. All the argument contends is that if a student plays chess then he or she will definitely become intelligent.

(B) The correct answer.

(C) Other sports are outside the scope of the argument.

(D) The argument restricts itself to tests of intelligence; there is nothing in the argument to suggest that all intelligent students will perform well in all subjects.

(E) Other ways of developing intelligence are again outside the scope of the argument.

it is a reversed pattern question.
if you go with prethinking than you can easily select B
a.some students-irrelavnat
b. as mentoned earlier.correct answer
c. baseball-irrelavant'
d. history-irrelavant'
e- might ne but this doesnt weaken