Bunuel wrote:
Studies have shown that the number of books read in elementary school is correlated with later academic success. In the past year, local elementary students have read an average of 10 fewer books than the nationwide elementary student average of 35 books per year, while 90 percent of those local students report playing sports at least twice a week. If these students participated less in sports, they would read more books.
Which of the following, if true, would most effectively weaken the argument?
(A) A nationwide survey of middle school students determined that if given a choice between reading a book and playing a sport, most of these students would choose reading a book.
(B) Participating in sports in elementary school has been shown to be as highly correlated as reading books to later academic success.
(C) The attention spans of elementary school students do not allow these children to read for as long as older students and adults are expected to read.
(D) The local elementary school is in a rural area in which there is no bookstore or public library and internet service is unreliable.
(E) Some local elementary school students who used to enjoy reading have said they no longer choose to read books, preferring to play sports at least twice a week.
Project CR Butler: Critical Reasoning
For all CR butler Questions Click HereKAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPESince the word “weaken” appears in the question stem, this is a Weaken question.
STEP 2: UNTANGLE THE STIMULUSThe conclusion is that if the local elementary school students played sports less, they would read more books. The evidence is that almost all of these students play sports two or more times a week, while the average number of books they read is lower than the national average. The author assumes that playing sports is causing students to read relatively fewer books. Note that the first sentence of the stimulus functions as background information rather than as evidence; it tells you why reading books might be important, but it is not used to support the claim that the students would read more books if they played sports less.
STEP 3: PREDICT THE ANSWERWhenever you’re asked to weaken a causal argument, consider the three classic alternative explanations: (1) cause and effect may be reversed (“reading fewer books leads to playing sports more often”), (2) there may be an alternative cause of the effect (“many local students have little access to books”), or (3) the apparent link between two events is coincidental (“whatever the cause of reading fewer books, it isn’t playing sports”). You don’t know exactly what the right answer will say, but you can expect it to fall into one of these three categories.
STEP 4: EVALUATE THE CHOICES(D) weakens the argument by proposing another reason local children don’t read books and do play sports. Since books are hard to get, if the children weren’t allowed to play sports, they might just be bored rather than read more. Thus,
(D) is correct. (A) is irrelevant because the argument is concerned with local elementary school students, not middle school students from across the country. The author’s conclusion is about what would cause students to read more books, not about the effect their not reading books will eventually have, so (B) does not weaken the argument. (C) presents an irrelevant comparison. The argument specifically compares local elementary school students to a national population of elementary school students, so how younger children compare to older readers is irrelevant. (E) is a 180. It strengthens the argument, suggesting that indeed playing sports caused these students to read fewer books.
_________________
12 Mar 2021, 00:15
64%
(02:00)
correct 
close
