Conclusion: “space flights carrying astronauts must continue” [because of the following: satellites repair only in orbit -> astronaut need to repair -> no repair = satellite malfunction]
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument above?
(A) Satellites falling from orbit because of malfunctions burn up in the atmosphere.
Out of scope – not sure why this is a trap answer.
(B) Although satellites are indispensable in the identification of weather patterns, weather forecasters also make some use of computer projections to identify weather patterns.
Pertinent potentially, but no. The dependent clause in the beginning threw it off (“satellites are indispensable”); indispensable = absolutely necessary. We’re trying to weaken the point that space flights carrying astronauts MUST continue. The conclusion could be true regardless of whether the answer choice is right or wrong.
(C) The government, responding to public pressure, has decided to cut the budget for space flights and put more money into social welfare programs.
Out of scope – doesn’t seem relevant at all. We’re NOT talking about money here and where that get allocated.
(D) Repair of satellites requires heavy equipment, which adds to the amount of fuel needed to lift a spaceship carrying astronauts into orbit.
Out of scope – what’s required for the repairs is irrelevant. It doesn’t negate the fact that space flights carrying astronauts MUST continue. This answer choice could be true or false, and the conclusion would hold. It doesn’t weaken.
(E) Technical obsolescence of robot satellites makes repairing them more costly and less practical than sending new, improved satellites into orbit.
New information to show the absolute conclusion isn’t absolute. Okay so the conclusion says that space flights carrying astronauts MUST continue to repair the satellites. But if we don’t have to repair (because we can presumably just launch these new satellites directly into orbit w/o astronauts), the space flights carrying astronauts are not necessary, weakening the argument’s conclusion. That was fun!