rs47 wrote:
Topical application of oil from the bark of aoli trees, which are quite rare and grow only in certain regions of South America, has been shown to be the only effective means of treating certain skin disorders. At the current rate of harvesting bark for aoli oil, however, aoil trees will become extinct within fifty years. Clearly, measures must be taken soon to reduce the demand for aoli oil; otherwise, fifty years from now it will no longer be possible to treat these skin disorders effecttively.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument above?
(A) One of the skin disorders for which aoli oil is an effective treatment is caused by exposure to chemicals used in a manufaturing process that is quickly becoming obsolete.
(B) The bark of newly planted aoli trees can be harvested for oil within twenty years after the new trees are planted.
(C) The cause of skin disorders treatable with aoli oil is also the cause of certain other health problems which are treated effectively by ingesting aoli oil
(D) In South America aoli tree bark is widely used in making a variety of decorative craft items and utensils.
(E) Only people who live in the regions of South America where aoli trees are found usffer from skin disorders treatable with aoil oil.
Let us first break down the argument.
Conclusion: Clearly, measures must be taken soon to reduce the demand for aioli oil; otherwise, fifty years from now it will no longer be possible to treat these skin disorders effectively.
Premises:
• Topical application of oil from the bark of aioli trees, which are quite rare and grow only in certain regions of South America, has been shown to be the only effective means of treating certain skin disorders.
• At the current rate of harvesting bark for aioli oil, however, aioli trees will become extinct within fifty years.
In order to weaken the argument that if measures are not taken to reduce the demand for aioli oil, in fifty years it would be impossible to treat skin disorders effectively, we must find information to show that the situation may not be as dire as predicted.
Option A only gives information to show that the treatment for one of the “certain skin disorders” mentioned in the passage may not need aioli oil. There are other skin disorders for which aioli oil is still required. Option A is not strong wnough to weaken the argument, so it can be eliminated.
Option C strengthens the argument by showing that there are more uses for aioli oil. If other health problems can also be treated by aioli oil, the demand for the oil will certainly be high and the trees will become extinct. So,
Option C can also be eliminated.
Option D contains information that is irrelevant to the argument as it is about the bark of the tree and the argument is about aioli oil. So,
Option D can also be eliminated.
Option E is not strong enough to weaken the argument. Even if it is only the people who live in the regions of South America where aioli trees grow suffer from these skin disorders, it is possible that the incidence of skin disorders is very high and that the demand for the oil is also high. So,
Option E can also be eliminated.
Option B is the only option with information to show that the demand for the oil need not be reduced. The conclusion states that it will be impossible to treat skin disorders fifty years from now as aioli trees will become extinct. But Option B states that the bark of newly planted aioli trees can be harvested for oil twenty years after the trees are planted.
Therefore, B is the most appropriate option to weaken the argument.Jayanthi Kumar.
close
19 Feb 2017, 09:45
46%
(02:17)
wrong 
