Hanlon’s Razor cautions that one should never attribute to malice

Question

Hanlon’s Razor cautions that one should never attribute to malice that which can instead be attributed to stupidity. But my roommate knew that my prize cactus should only be watered once a week, so it is clear that by overwatering the plant he intended to destroy it.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument?

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument?

Intending to destroy a plant is a form of malice.
 The roommate resented being obliged to water the cactus.
 The roommate expressed great sorrow upon being told that he was responsible for the death of the cactus.
 The roommate is a member of a local botanical society.
 The roommate was unaware of the amount of water the cactus was to be given.

humboldt · Answer

Thanks Aadika. Here's my thought process on how I approached it.

Reading the question "Hanlon’s Razor cautions that one should never attribute to malice that which can instead be attributed to stupidity. But my roommate knew that my prize cactus should only be watered once a week, so it is clear that by overwatering the plant he intended to destroy it." - so hence to weaken the argument there must be some stupidity involved in watering the plant or some incompetence of sorts.

Going through the arguments....

Intending to destroy a plant is a form of malice - Doesn't weaken argument, somewhat irrelevant, bin
 The roommate resented being obliged to water the cactus. - Irrelevant, bin it
 The roommate expressed great sorrow upon being told that he was responsible for the death of the cactus. - Irrelevant, talking about intentions rather than stupidity, not direct link
 The roommate is a member of a local botanical society.- Irrelevant
 The roommate was unaware of the amount of water the cactus was to be given.- Yep. This one implies stupidity and ignorance. If roommate was aware of amount of water the cactus would be given, this would strengthen the conclusion. So this one is right.

Hope it helps.

sahanas · Answer

Can someone please explain the OA

Skyline393 · Answer

VERITAS OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Solution: E

In any Weaken question, your first three steps are: 1) locating the conclusion; 2) negating it; 3) searching the answers for something that supports that negation. The negation of our conclusion is “The roommate may NOT have intended to destroy the cactus”, so we need some answer choice providing evidence for that. Only C and E even touch on the roommate not wanting to destroy the cactus, but C merely says that the roommate acted sad – which, of course, could just be an act, or a feeling of guilt. E says that the roommate didn’t know how much water the cactus required, raising the strong possibility that the death of the cactus was an accident.

anand123456 · Answer

"But my roommate knew that my prize cactus should only be watered once a week"

how I am approaching is above sentence as fact,as given them how can answer be negating it that friend is unaware of amount of water

jaisonsunny77 · Answer

the meaning of malice is 'to harm someone/something'

So, based on this meaning, we can derive the structure of the passage as follows:

Don't harm someone (or something) --> because harming = stupidity. 
 Roommate knew that he's not supposed to water the plant more than once a week

Therefore, by over-watering, he (the roommate) intended to kill my cactus plant.

One possible way to weaken the argument is for us to  weaken the idea that the roommate had the intention to kill the plant ; in other words, we need to show that the roommate didn't intend to kill the plant at all - maybe he was genuinely trying to help.

So, lets find the answer choice that weakens the argument

A.  Intending to destroy a plant is a form of malice.  - this is actually an assumption that has led to the conclusion of the argument; knowing what (A) says does not weaken the argument in any way. So,  eliminate (A)
 
B.  The roommate resented being obliged to water the cactus.  - Okay. the roommate may have hated having the responsibility to water the cactus. But how does this weaken the idea that 'he (the roommate) intend to do so? This isn't clear. So,  Eliminate (B)

C.  The roommate expressed great sorrow upon being told that he was responsible for the death of the cactus.  - What if the roommate did have the intention to kill the cactus plant? After doing so, he might play innocent and claim that he was sorry for doing So. This statement can be used to interpret the argument in a very different way: You could also say that the roommate truly didn't intend to kill the cactus plant. Since (B) can be interpreted in both ways, it does not weaken the argument 100%. So,  eliminate (C)

D.  The roommate is a member of a local botanical society.  - This has the same problem that (B) has - (D) does not weaken the question at all. In fact, (D) is irrelevant. Hence,  eliminate (D)

E.  The roommate was unaware of the amount of water the cactus was to be given.   - In other words, the roommate did water the cactus but was unaware of the amount of water that it had to be given. So, he (the roommate) has made an unintentional mistake of over-watering the plant. This certainly rules out (or weakens) the author's claim that the roommate 'intended to kill the cactus'.   Hence, (E) is the right answer.

Pritishd · Answer

A very nice question; I found it tricky even though it is tagged as a sub 600 level question. Note that the word  malice  means having an ill/bad intention.

Key takeaways 
1. The opening line of the passage says that an act of stupidity should not be concluded as an act of malice
2. The passage then concludes with an example that states how the roommate over watered the plant despite knowing that over watering will kill the plant
2.a. In other words, the author says that his/her roommate did this knowingly and hence this is an outcome of malice
2.b. Another indicator of this ill intention is the opening words of the second sentence of the passage (highlighted)

How do we weaken this conclusion? 
The conclusion is that the roommate's action was a result of malice. Hence, in order to weaken this conclusion we need to show that the roommate's action was NOT a result of malice

A. Intending to destroy a plant is a form of malice 
This is strengthening the conclusion by saying that the intention is a form of malice
 B. The roommate resented being obliged to water the cactus 
This is strengthening the conclusion by saying that the roommate did not like the responsibility to water the plant and hence might have over watered to vent out anger
 C. The roommate expressed great sorrow upon being told that he was responsible for the death of the cactus 
This one says that he showed sorrow but does not tell us his intention a. Might have falsely enacted being sorrowful or b. Might actually regret his actions. As this can go both ways we can eliminate this option
 D. The roommate is a member of a local botanical society 
This is general information and neither strengthens or weakens the conclusion
 E. The roommate was unaware of the amount of water the cactus was to be given 
This one weakens the conclusion by stating that the roommate did not knowingly overwatered the plants and hence the actions were not an outcome of malice

Ans.  E

chackomaria92 · Answer

Hi.I've understood the explaination about the malice. but my question is different - how can you question the premise that  the roomate knew that the plant should not be watered more than once . Isn't the premise/the fact given by the author in critical reasoning type arguments not to be questioned? Please correct me.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Hanlon’s Razor cautions that one should never attribute to malice

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Hanlon’s Razor cautions that one should never attribute to malice

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia