Bunuel wrote:
The sanitation chief, hailing the success of her voluntary conservation program, reported that the amount of garbage produced per capita in the city decreased dramatically last year. But that statistic is deceptive. Last year the city incorporated three villages from the surrounding suburban area, increasing its population by almost 30 percent. It is this increase, rather than the conservation program, that explains the statistical drop.
Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the author's objection to the sanitation chief's claim?
A. Because of differences between urban and suburban life, most suburban areas produce less garbage per capita than do urban areas.
B. The voluntary conservation program was not implemented in the three incorporated villages until very late last year.
C. The year before last, the three villages produced as many pounds of garbage per capita as did the city.
D. The statistics cited by the sanitation chief do not include commercial waste or garbage collected by private carters.
E. Due to a three-week strike, some of the garbage produced by the city during the year before last year was not counted in the statistics.
KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:
Identify the Question Type:This is a Weaken question, determined by the keywords “would seriously weaken” in the question stem. The correct answer will undermine an assumption made by the author in objecting to the sanitation chief’s claim.
Untangle the Stimulus:Per capita garbage production is lower this year than last. The sanitation chief claims this drop is a result of her conservation program. The author presents the additional evidence that the municipality has absorbed 30% more people as a result of suburban consolidation. The author disputes the chief’s conclusion, instead concluding that the drop in per capita garbage is not due to the chief’s conservation program but to the population shift. It is this last conclusion that the correct answer will weaken.
Predict the Answer:
The author assumes that suburban villagers are deflating the per capita garbage figures because suburbanites produce less garbage than their urban counterparts. An answer choice that shows there is no difference, generally, between these two groups in terms of garbage produced per person, or that suburbanites produce more garbage, would weaken the author’s case.
Evaluate the Choices:(C) matches the prediction, stating explicitly that prior-year garbage production was the same per person in both the suburban and original areas in this year’s municipality, and is thus the correct answer.
(A) is the assumption the author is making, so it strengthens the argument.
(B) makes it less likely that the conservation program is responsible for the drop, which also strengthens this argument.
As long as the same type of garbage is eliminated from both year’s statistics, the effect of this on the different arguments is anyone’s guess, so (D) is wrong.
More garbage the year before last year, from (E), just increases the drop in garbage; it does not affect the author’s attempt to explain this drop.
TAKEAWAY: When an author's argument depends on assuming that a group has a particular trait, weaken it by showing that the group doesn't.