Bunuel
Tiny channels on the footpads of tree frogs give these frogs the ability to repeatedly adhere to surfaces without the cracking that occurs when adhesive tape is reused in a similar manner. A new commercially available tape mimics these channels, not only giving the tape the ability to be reused many times, but also increasing the tape’s adhesiveness. If tree frogs had become extinct five years ago, as was feared at the time, this tape would not now be available.
Which of the following most weakens the conclusion in the argument above?
(A) The footpads of tree frogs are not as adhesive as the foot pads of certain lizards that are in no danger of extinction.
(B) At the time when concern was raised over the possible extinction of the tree frog, the actual risk of extinction was greatly overestimated.
(C) The tape was designed by looking at the footpads of the preserved remains of tree frogs that had died of natural causes.
(D) A commercially available adhesive tape that has been chemically treated can be reused in much the same manner as the tape that mimics the footpads of tree frogs.
(E) Tests have shown that the footpads of tree frogs become slightly less adhesive as the frogs age.
VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
Answer: C
Explanation: The conclusion in the argument is that the tape would not be available if the frogs had become extinct. If, however, as choice C states, the tape were designed by looking at dead frogs, it would not matter if there were no live frogs. Therefore, this choice weakens the conclusion.
(A) This comparison is irrelevant. We cannot assume that the same tape would have been invented by looking at lizards.
(B) The conclusion is based on the proposition “If tree frogs had become extinct”, so the fact that they were not actually going to become extinct is out of the scope.
(D) The argument is strictly about a particular tape, so any discussion of other tapes is out of the scope.
(E) This does not weaken the conclusion. No claim was made that the frogs’ footpads would never lose adhesiveness.