Paperback books wear out more quickly than hardcover books do, but Support paperback books cost much less. ██████████ █████ ██ ██████ █████████ █████ ██ ██████ ██████ ██ ██████ █████████ ██████ ████ █████████ ██████ █████ ██ ██ █████ █████ █████████ █████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ █████ ██ █████ ███████████ ███████ ██████████ █████ ████████
The argument concludes that libraries would better serve their users by purchasing only paperback books. Why? Because paperbacks are cheaper (although they're less durable). This would allow libraries to add more new books to their collections without spending more money.
There are two opportunities we can spot to weaken the argument. First, we could attack the sub-conclusion that buying paperbacks will let libraries grow their collections. To do so, we'd want to say that the drawbacks outweigh the positives: the lower durability degrades collections faster than they can be replaced, even at a cheaper price.
Second, we could attack the value judgment about users' best interests. This means showing that users are not better served by a larger paperback collection than by a smaller hardcover collection. Maybe there are other factors in play—for example, if people rely on libraries for new books that haven't yet been released in paperback.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ █████████ ███████ ███ █████████
If a public ███████████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ████████████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ███ ██████████ ███████████
The argument isn't talking about budget cuts, though, just how libraries can do more within their existing budgets. Even if it were, (A) would strengthen more than weakening. If acquisitions budgets are especially vulnerable, that's even more reason to stretch them further.
Paperback books can ████ █████████████ ████ █████ ██████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ███████
This only strengthens the argument by mitigating a disadvantage to buying paperbacks. Not only do paperbacks have a lower sticker price, their poor durability can also be cheaply improved. Now we have even less reason to buy hardcovers.
Many paperback books ███ █████ █████████ ██ ██████████
(C) could be useful if it were reversed to say that many books are only available in hardcover. But as it is, it gives us no reason to buy hardcovers over paperbacks. So it fails to weaken to conclusion that paperbacks are the best strategy.
Library users as █ █████ ██████ ██ █████ ██████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ █ ████ ███████ ██ ██████████ █████████ █████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ █████████ █████
This tells us why buying only paperbacks does not best serve library users. If library users rely on libraries for books which are available only in hardcover, then buying only paperbacks would make libraries less useful. (D) weakens by showing us that size isn't all that matters.
People are more ██████ ██ ███ ███ ██████████ █ ████ ██ █ ████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ████ ███ ██████ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████████
But does people's likelihood of buying personal copies have anything to do with how useful the library is to them? As far as we know, these are totally different considerations, which makes (E) not relevant to the argument at hand.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic