Most Undermines the Conclusion vs. Most Strengthens the Argument

mattwhitworth56

Hey everyone,
I had a question about undermining the conclusion of an argument. Does it have to help undermine a premise that is stated because that is how the conclusion is arrived at? Or can it be an entirely new premise? For instance, if the conclusion is that increased energy consumption is bad because we are already too dependent on technology and too many kids are on their phones all the time, and one option said studies conclusively show children aren't on their phones at an unhealthy rate and that technology dependence has replaced drug dependence, would that be the right answer choice since it most directly undermines the premises of the conclusion? Versus another option that says increased energy consumption is bad because global warming is directly affected by energy consumption and our planet is on the verge of falling apart, I feel like that better undermines the conclusion if we are just looking at the conclusion alone. But if it is undermining the specific conclusion that the author came to then I guess the initial choice would be better? This might be a super dumb question I just keep spending way too much time on easy questions because I'm overthinking it.

tahurrrrr

You're not looking to outright contradict either the premise or conclusion. So if the premise says, "kids spend too much time on their phone" an option saying that "kids don't spend too much time on their phones" is, in most cases, not the correct answer.

What you're trying to do is make the premise and conclusion relationship less relevant. For example, if your argument is "Cats are better than dogs because dogs are loud," the correct answer probably won't be "Dogs aren't loud." Rather, it might read something like "Cats are at least as loud as dogs"