Self-study
The makers of Activite, a natural dietary supplement, claim that it promotes energy and mental alertness. ██ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ████ █████ █ ███████ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████ ████████ ████ ██ ██████████ █████ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ██ ███ █████████ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ██████
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that Activate must be effective at providing energy and mental alertness. Why? Because the makers of Activate offer a free month’s supply to customers, which would not be in their interests if Activate was ineffective.
The argument rests on the causal claim that offering a free month of Activate can only be explained by Activate being effective. To weaken, we need to undermine that idea by showing that offering free samples could still be in the company's interests even if Activate isn't effective. One way we can do this is by attacking the author's assumptions.
Notable Assumptions
The author relies on the assumption that the makers of Activate don’t get any benefit from the free sample other than having potential customers try their product. Any hidden benefit that the company gets from distributing free samples would weaken the author’s argument.
The author also assumes that potential customers who try Activate for free will only keep using it if it's actually effective. This means that we can weaken by finding another reason customers might keep buying even an ineffective supplement, something like the placebo effect or just the power of habit-forming.
24.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ███████ ███ █████████
a
The nutrients in ████████ ███ ███ ██ ████████ ████ █ ████████████ ██████ ███ █████████████ █████
The author never said Activate is necessary for energy and alertness. It can still help people who may, for whatever reason, not get those nutrients in their diet. Activate not being the only way to get these benefits doesn't weaken the idea that it can be effective.
b
There are less █████████ ███████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ██ █████████ ██ █████████
Activate can still be effective even if it’s not the cost-efficient. The hypothesis is specifically about whether Activate is effective, so considerations like cost that don't actually impact effectiveness aren't relevant.
c
A month is ███ █ ██████████ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ████ ███████ ███████████ ██ ██ █████ ██████████
Firstly, even if Activate isn't “fully” effective in a month, it might still be somewhat effective. Secondly, this doesn't hint at any other reason why the company might provide samples. It just doesn't weaken the argument that the samples indicate Activate's effectiveness.
Illusory inconsistency
Illusory inconsistency
Answer is attractive because it seems to (but doesn't actually) contradict the premises or conclusion.
d
The makers of ████████ ██████ █ ████████ ███ ████ ██ ████████████ ████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ████ ███ ████ █████ ████████
In other words, Activate’s makers ingeniously make money from the free sample. This weakens by giving another reason why the company would choose to offer the free samples: even if Activate is ineffective and customers don't keep buying it, they're profiting from the "free" month.
Alternate explanation
Alternate explanation
Weaken: Introduce or support an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.
Strengthen: Helps to eliminate an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.
e
The mere fact ████ █ ███████ ██████████ ████████ ████ ███████ ███████████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ██ ███████ ████ ████████
Like (B), this raises a concern that isn't actually relevant to the author's argument about Activate's effectiveness. This doesn't say Activate actually has side-effects, but even if it did, it could still be effective.