Bunuel wrote:
Several people have died while canoeing during high water on a nearby river in recent years. The local police have proposed a ban on canoeing when the river reaches flood stage. Opponents of the ban argue that the government should ban an activity only if it harms people other than those who willingly participate in the activity, and they, therefore, conclude that the proposed ban on high-water canoeing is unwarranted.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the opponents' conclusion?
A. Sailboats are not allowed on a nearby lake when winds exceed 50 miles per hour.
B. Several other local governments have imposed similar bans on other rivers.
C. Several police officers have been seriously injured while trying to rescue canoeists who were stranded on the Over while attempting to canoe during high water.
D. More canoeists drown while canoeing rivers at normal water levels than while canoeing rivers at high water levels.
E. Statistics provided by the U.S. National Park Service show that fewer people drown on rivers with high-water canoeing bans than on rivers without such bans.
Project CR Butler: Critical Reasoning
For all CR butler Questions Click HereKAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPEThe stem contains the obvious key word “weakens,” but it also asks you to weaken the opponents’ conclusion in particular. Keep this information in mind—there may be more than one argument in the stimulus.
STEP 2: UNTANGLE THE STIMULUSThe government shouldn’t ban an activity that poses no risk to people who don’t voluntarily participate. Therefore, the opponents argue, the government should not ban high-water canoeing.
STEP 3: PREDICT THE ANSWERTo weaken the argument, you need an answer choice that explains why the opponents’ proposal should, on its own terms, be rejected. Here, the opponents assume that high-water canoeing does not harm anyone who does not willingly participate in the canoeing. To weaken the conclusion, look for an answer choice suggesting that canoeing during flood stage does in fact threaten people other than those who have chosen to canoe.
STEP 4: EVALUATE THE CHOICES(C) offers such a suggestion by stating that police officers, none of whom consented to expose themselves to the dangers of canoeing in high water, were in fact harmed as a result of such canoeing.
(C) is the correct answer. (A) has no bearing on the argument; it isn’t clear how sailing on a lake during high wind is relevant to canoeing on a river during high water. This statement tells us nothing about whether high-water canoeing poses risks to non-canoers. And just because, as (B) says, other governments have also enacted the bans, that doesn’t mean that the bans are necessarily reasonable. The opponents might still have a valid argument. Therefore, (B) is also irrelevant. (D) offers an irrelevant comparison: that more canoeists drown while the river is at normal levels may simply be due to the fact that there are more canoeists at that time to begin with. That has no bearing on whether canoeing should be banned when water levels are high. And (E) might be tempting, but it doesn’t show that the opponents’ proposal to abolish the ban won’t work on its own terms. (E) doesn’t give an example of non-canoeists harmed by the canoeing.
_________________
14 Mar 2021, 23:15
80%
(01:26)
correct 
close
