That the application of new technology can increase the productivity of existing coal mines is demonstrated by the case of Tribnia’s coal industry. Coal output per miner in Tribnia is double what it was five years ago, even though no new mines have opened. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument in the passage?The argument says productivity doubled because new technology increased productivity in existing mines.
The weakness is that output per miner could have increased for another reason, not necessarily because
each existing mine became more productive through technology.
A. The most efficient mining technology is specifically designed for open-pit mines, the type of mine prevalent in Tribnia.
This strengthens the argument. If Tribnia mostly has the kind of mines suited to efficient technology, technology is a more plausible explanation.
B. The new mining technology can be successfully applied in most coal mines, but not in such mines as metal-ore mines, for example.
This does not weaken the argument. The issue is coal mines, not metal-ore mines.
C. New coal mines that opened in a country bordering Tribnia have lower productivity than is currently achieved in the Tribnian mines that are highest in productivity.
This is irrelevant. The argument is about why Tribnia’s output per miner doubled.
D. In the last three years several of the Tribnian coal mines that were lowest in productivity have been closed down.
This is correct. If the least productive mines closed, then average output per miner could rise even if the remaining mines did not become more productive because of new technology. This gives an alternative explanation for the doubled productivity.
E. Tribnia’s coal output is not sufficient to satisfy domestic demand, which has increased in the last five years.
This does not weaken the argument. Demand does not explain whether the increase in output per miner was caused by new technology.
Answer: (D)