Self-study
The number of airplanes equipped with a new anticollision device has increased steadily during the past two years. ██████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████████ ██████ ███ ███ ███████████ █████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ████████████ ████████ ███ ███ █████████████ ███████ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████████ ███ ███ ██████ █████████████ ██ ███ ████████████
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that a new anticollision device is responsible for the sudden disappearance of information from air traffic controllers’ screens. This is based on the observation that over the last two years, the anticollision device has become more popular, while at the same time, the information disappearances have become more frequent.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that just because there’s a correlation between the use of the new anticollision device and information disappearing from air traffic controllers’ screens, the former must be causally contributing to the latter. This means that the author assumes there isn’t some other cause for the disappearing information.
25.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ █████████ ███████ ███ █████████
a
The new anticollision ██████ ███ ███████ █████████ █ ████████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███████████
This does not weaken the argument, because it’s totally unrelated to the author’s hypothesis. The author isn’t saying we should stop using the anticollision device, just that it’s interfering with air traffic control information. This isn’t at all relevant to that claim.
b
It was not █████ ███ ███ █████████████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ████ ███ ███████████ █████ █████ ████████████ ████████ ████ ████████████ ████████
This does not weaken the argument. In fact, it may even strengthen the argument by establishing a stronger temporal connection between the use of the new device and the information disappearance.
Directionally wrong
Directionally wrong
Answers that, if they have any effect, do the opposite of what we want (weaken when we're trying to strengthen, or strengthen when we're trying to weaken).
c
The new anticollision ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ██ █████ ██ █ █████████ █████████ ██████ ███ ████ ███ ██ █████ ███████
This does not weaken the argument, because it doesn’t give us any reason to believe that the device may not interfere with air traffic control. If the frequency had been switched but information kept disappearing, that could weaken—but that’s not what this says.
d
Key information began ████████████ ████ ████████████ ███████ █████ ██████ ██████ ███ ███ █████████████ ██████ ███ █████ ███████
This weakens the argument by undermining the temporal link between the use of the new device and the disappearing information. It still doesn’t tell us the true cause, but if the information was disappearing without the device ever being used, there must be another cause.
Plausibility
Plausibility
Presenting evidence that corroborates (in Strengthen) or conflicts (in Weaken) with the author's hypothesized explanation or the predictions that follow from that explanation.
e
The sudden disappearance ██ ███ ███████████ ████ ████████████ ███████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ██████████ █████ █████████
This does not weaken the argument. We don’t know enough about how frequently the disappearances happen, how many planes use the new device, and so on, for this to be helpful. As it is, this doesn’t tell us anything about whether the new device truly causes interference.
Failed alternate explanation
Failed alternate explanation
Weaken Qs: Answers that try to introduce an alternate explanation, but fall short, or try to explain a different phenomenon.
Strengthen Qs: Answers that try to eliminate an alternate explanation, but fall short, or try to eliminate an explanation for a different phenomenon.