KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE
The 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 STIMULUS
The 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 ANSWER
To 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.
_________________

IMO C

A. Sailboats are not allowed on a nearby lake when winds exceed 50 miles per hour.

- Out of scope and irrelevant, Eliminate A

B. Several other local governments have imposed similar bans on other rivers.

- No correlation between the bans on other rivers and this river - Irrelevant and out of scope. Eliminate B

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.

- This weakens the opponents argument "harms people other than those who willingly participate in the activity" as several police officers have been injured trying to rescue canoeists and it confirms that other people have been harmed who willingly did not participate in this sport. Keep C

D. More canoeists drown while canoeing rivers at normal water levels than while canoeing rivers at high water levels.

- There is no similar comparison being made, Irrelevant . Eliminate D

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.

- Irrelevant and out of scope. Eliminate E

IMO C


Option A - Irrelevant ( X )

Option B - Irrelevant ( X )

Option C - This weakens the conclusion since with the canoeists , police officers are also getting affected so this weakens the conclusion ( ✔ ).

Option D - Irrelevant ( X )

Option E - Irrelevant ( X )

Conclusion: Opponents feel that the government should ban an activity only if it harms people other than those who willingly participate in the activity

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the opponents' conclusion?

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.

Clearly C weakens the conclusion stating that non participants are also affected in canoeing.

Opponents of the ban: 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.

Pre-thinking: If other people are getting harmed, then it will weaken the opponents argument.

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. -> It is not related with Other people gets impacted or not.

B. Several other local governments have imposed similar bans on other rivers. -> Irrelevant.

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. -> These police officers, who didn't participate willingly, makes sense to weaken the argument. Let's keep it.

D. More canoeists drown while canoeing rivers at normal water levels than while canoeing rivers at high water levels. ->It is not weakening the opponent's argument.

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. -> Irrelevant.

So, I think C.

IMO C

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?

Conclusion : proposed ban on high-water canoeing is unwarranted.
We want to prove that the ban is only fair
Find anything other than the stated premise but related to premise that tells you about the degree of danger.

A. Sailboats are not allowed on a nearby lake when winds exceed 50 miles per hour.
Irrelevant

B. Several other local governments have imposed similar bans on other rivers.
Does not mean that this government imposes one. Also, unrelated to the conclusion.

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.
Correct and inline with our pre-thinking.

D. More canoeists drown while canoeing rivers at normal water levels than while canoeing rivers at high water levels.
Normal water levels are not being talked about.

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.
Irrelevant.