CR Framework Applications - Weakens

Critical Reasoning
Weaken Questions
I. Conclusion
II. Visualization
III. Framework Prethinking
1) Before/After
2) Linked Chains
3) Expectation vs Actuality
4) Negation
5) Sample Generalization Techniques used:
6) Weakens
A. Defends #1, #2
Weaken = Visualization +
B. Weakens #1, #2, #3, #4
Defend + Weaken Frameworks
7) Evaluate
8) Inference
9) Bold-faced / Structure
10) Circular Reasoning
CR Strengthen Frameworks
Weaken (Table of Contents)
Framework #6A Defends

1. Forecasting Weather (A)
2. DVD Rental and Sales
3. Burning Nitrous Oxide
4. Water-conserving Landscape
Framework #6B Weakens
1. Camel Hump
2. Forecasting Weather (B)
3. Polyester and Nylon Prices
4. Scoring Points
5. Postal Service
6. Armed Forces

1. Camel Hump
4. Scoring Points
5. Postal Service
6. Armed Forces
Forecasting Weather (A)
Best be used for arguing against the authors position

Meteorologists say that if only they could design an accurate mathematical model of the atmosphere with all
its complexities, they could forecast the weather with real precision. But this is an idle boast, immune to any
evaluation, for any inadequate weather forecast would obviously be blamed on imperfections in the model.
Which of the following, if true, could best be used as a basis for arguing against the author's position that the
meteorologists' claim cannot be evaluated?
(A) Certain unusual configurations of data can serve as the basis for precise weather forecasts even though
the exact causal mechanisms are not understood.
(B) Most significant gains in the accuracy of the relevant mathematical models are accompanied by clear
gains in the precision of weather forecasts.
(C) Mathematical models of the meteorological aftermath of such catastrophic events as volcanic eruptions
are beginning to be constructed.
(D) Modern weather forecasts for as much as a full day ahead are broadly correct about 80 percent of the
time.
(E) Meteorologists readily concede that the accurate mathematical model they are talking about is not now in
their power to construct.
Step 1: Whats the original argument? What is the attack?
What is the original argument?

Accurate model forecast precision
What is the attack?

Its not valid
Step 2: Visualize and Pre-think (Defends Framework)
Original Attack
Accurate model dismiss Thats an idle boast, cant
forecast with precision be evaluated Prethinking
Blame wrong Recognize this as a defend question
forecasts on
errors in model 1) Defend #1 strengthen the original
1. Defend 2) Defend #2 Weaken the attack nothing
comes to mind right away
? 2. Address this concern
Step 3: (A) (B) (C)
Does this show that 1) defend #1: strengthen existing argument or 2) defend #2 weaken the attack or
(A) Certain unusual configurations of data can serve as the basis for precise weather forecasts even though
the exact causal mechanisms are not understood.
Not relevant
No. Mentions unusual configurations precise forecasts. Thats something else
leading to the arguments outcome of precise weather not accurate model precise
forecasts. Not the same argument.
(B) Most significant gains in the accuracy of the relevant mathematical models are accompanied by
clear gains in the precision of weather forecasts.
Yes. Substantiates a connection between gain in model accuracy with gain in forecast
Strengthens original precision. Strengthens original argument.
(C) Mathematical models of the meteorological aftermath of such catastrophic events as volcanic eruptions
are beginning to be constructed.
Not relevant No. Models of catastrophic events do not weaken the attack or strengthen the original.
Step 3: (D) (E)
Does this show that 1) weaken the attack or 2) strengthen existing argument
(D) Modern weather forecasts for as much as a full day ahead are broadly correct about 80 percent of the
time.
Not relevant No. Does not mention the mathematical models.
(E) Meteorologists readily concede that the accurate mathematical model they are talking about is not now in
their power to construct.
Not relevant No. Ability to create models is a separate question. Argument is about whether, if they
could, have an accurate model, whether or not this would result in forecasting precision.
Step 4: Conclusion (B)
Original Attack
Accurate model dismiss Thats an idle boast, cant
forecast with precision be evaluated
Defend #1: Strengthen the original. Blame wrong
forecasts on
errors in model
1. Defend
(B) Most significant gains in the

? 2. Address this concern
accuracy of the relevant
mathematical models are
accompanied by clear gains in the
precision of weather forecasts.
DVD Rental and Sales
Most seriously weaken the objection

Josh: DVD rentals nationwide together handled 10 million fewer DVD rentals in 2012 than in 2011. The decline
in rentals was probably due almost entirely to the February 2012 launch of Webflix, the first and only DVD
rental available that, in addition to renting DVDs, also sold them cheaply.
Maxwell: There must be another explanation: as you yourself said, the decline was on the order of 10 million
rentals. Yet Webflix sold only 4 million DVDs in 2012.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the objection that Maxwell presents to Josh's
explanation?
(A) In 2012 Webflix rented out more DVDs than it sold.
(B) In 2012 two new DVD services that rent but that do not sell DVDs became available nationwide.
(C) Most of the DVD rental services in the country rent DVDs at a discount on certain nights of the week.
(D) People often buy DVDs of movies that they have previously seen in a theater.
(E) People who own DVDs frequently loan them to their friends.
explanation?
What is the original conclusion?

Decline in rentals due primarily to launch of Webflix
What is the attack?

Must be some other explanation
rental available that, in addition to renting videos, also sold them cheaply.
explanation?
Original Attack
(Josh) (Maxwell) Prethinking
Recognize this as a defend question
Decline due to launch of Webflix
Must be another
Selling DVDs cheaply so explanation 1) Defend #1 Strengthen the original
fewer rentals
Decline of
2) Defend #2 Weaken the attack by
10M rentals, explaining why we have a legitimate 6M gap
yet webflix
sold only 4M 10M rentals gone means that 10M must have
been sold instead. But only 4M were sold. Must
Explain why? Missing 6M be another reason why 6M is not accounted for.
fewer rentals
Step 3: (A) (B) (C)
explanation?
Does this 1) explain the 6M gap of fewer rentals?
(A) In 2012 Webflix rented out more DVDs than it sold.

No. Does not talk about the missing 6M. Renting out more than 4M DVDs does not
Does not explain
explain why the overall market dropped by 10M in rentals.
(B) In 2012 two new DVD services that rent but that do not sell DVDs became available nationwide.
Does not explain No. Mentions more rental services but there is a steep unaccounted 6M in decline.
More rental services does not contribute to decline in rentals.
(C) Most of the DVD rental services in the country rent DVDs at a discount on certain nights of the week.
No. Mentions specific policy of discounting during week but these discounts affect
Does not explain
price and NOT units of DVD rentals. The drop in # of DVD rentals is still not explained.
Step 3: (D) (E)
explanation?
Does this 1) explain the 6M gap of fewer rentals?
(D) People often buy DVDs of movies that they have previously seen in a theater.
Does not explain No. Mentions DVD buyers. But are these increasing or decreasing? Are people seeing
more movies in theaters and therefore buying more DVDs (rather than renting them?).
The connection is not clear. Not clear that people are watching more movies in theaters.
(E) People who own DVDs frequently loan them to their friends.
Explains drop Yes. If dvds are frequently loaned out, then those friends are no longer renting,
they are borrowing from their friends. This would reduce DVD rentals.
Step 4: Conclusion (E)
rental available that, in addition to renting videos, also sold them cheaply.
rentals. Yet Webflix sold only 4 million videos in 2012.
explanation?
Defend #2: Weaken the attack

Original Attack
Decline due to launch of Webflix

Must be another
(E) People who own DVDs Selling DVDs cheaply so explanation
frequently loan them to fewer rentals
Decline of
their friends. People who own DVDs
10M rentals,
frequently loan them to
yet webflix
their friends.
sold only 4M
Missing 6M
fewer rentals
Burning Nitrous Oxide
Counters the objection

Proposal: Nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases that do not allow heat to escape into
space. When the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is too high, the result is climate change,
specifically global warming. In order to reduce global warming, emission of greenhouse gases needs to be
reduced. Therefore, since both nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide are emitted from long-haul trucks using
natural gas, these trucks should be replaced with electric powered trucks.
Objection: The electricity that would power electric-powered trucks comes primarily from power plants that
emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Which of the following, if true, most adequately counters the objection made to the proposal?
(A) Every time a human being or other mammal exhales, there is some carbon dioxide released into the air.
(B) The replacement of natural gas trucks with electric-powered trucks would occur gradually over a decade.
(C) The electricity that is used to power electric cars generally comes from coal-based power plants.
(D) Nitrous oxide in the atmosphere is more effective in blocking the escape of heat from the Earth
than is carbon dioxide.
(E) The amount of nitrous oxide emitted from natural gas combustion could be reduced if natural gas trucks
used the latest in combustion technologies.

Replace natural gas trucks with electric-powered trucks
What is the attack?

Electricity also has CO2 greenhouse emissions
Original Attack
Replace natural gas trucks with Prethinking
electric-powered trucks
reduce global warming Problem Recognize as a defend question
Avoid Nitrous Oxide and Electricity Defend the replacement of natural gas trucks with
CO2 from power
plants emit
CO2
Defend #1: Strengthen existing argument
?
Step 3: (A) (B) (C)
Does this defend by 1) Strengthening existing argument OR 2) Weakening the attack
(A) Every time a human being or other mammal exhales, there is some carbon dioxide released into the air.
Not relevant No. Mentions carbon dioxide released is very common but not related to showing why
natural gas trucks should be replaced.
(B) The replacement of natural gas trucks with electric-powered trucks would occur gradually over a decade.
Not relevant No. Logistics of the replacement are not of interest. We care whether decision to replace
is valid or not.
(C) The electricity that is used to power electric cars generally comes from coal-based power plants.
Not relevant No. Mentions electricity from coal power plants but we do not have enough info here to
decide whether this is a good thing or bad thing.
Step 3: (D) (E)
Does this defend by 1) Strengthening existing argument OR 2) Weakening the attack
(D) Nitrous oxide in the atmosphere is more effective in blocking the escape of heat from the Earth
than is carbon dioxide.
Yes. Nitrous oxide being more effective in blocking heat means it is a more
Defends
argument
dangerous greenhouse gas. If so, then replacing what would have been nitrous
oxide in the atmosphere with carbon dioxide instead would have benefits.
(E) The amount of nitrous oxide emitted from natural gas combustion could be reduced if natural gas trucks
used the latest in combustion technologies.
Weakens No. Reducing nitrous oxide from natural gas trucks would support staying with natural
argument gas trucks not moving away from them.
Step 4: Conclusion (D)
Original Attack Defend #2: weaken the attack degree of attack is

not strong enough
Replace natural gas trucks with
reduce global warming Problem
Avoid Nitrous Oxide and Electricity

(D) Nitrous oxide in the atmosphere is more
CO2 from power
effective in blocking the escape of heat from
plants emit
CO2 the Earth than is carbon dioxide.
Still better off having CO2
in place of the more
potent Nitrous Oxide
Water-conserving Landscape
Rebuttal to friends criticism

Salesman: Be environmentally friendly. By converting the landscaping on your property to a water-conserving
landscape, you can greatly reduce the amount of outdoor water you use. A water-conserving landscape saves
you money and is the natural way to stay environmentally friendly.
Customer's Friend: For most people, the savings from converting to a water-conserving landscape are too
small to justify the added expense of new landscaping, since typically the conversion would save less than
thirty dollars on a customers' water bills annually.
Which of the following, if true, provides the best basis for a rebuttal of the customer friend's criticism?
(A) Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.
(B) It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping.
(C) A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than
does a water-conserving landscape.
(D) Majority of buildings in cities do not have yards at all.
(E) Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by
installing water-saving devices in their homes.

convert to water landscape, saves money
What is the attack?

savings are too small
Original Attack
Prethinking
Convert to a water-conserving
landscape Savings are too
small
Recognize as a defend question
Reduce outdoor water Savings less than Defend the replacement of natural gas trucks with
use, saves money $30 annually not
enough to cover
added expense
Defend #1: Strengthen existing argument
?
Step 3: (A) (B) (C)
(A) Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.
Not relevant No. Mentions use of water for landscaping vs other uses. Other uses is not relevant and
wont strengthen our existing argument or attack the friends criticism. Also no reference
to savings
(B) It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping.
No clear benefit No. Mentions same cost to install for both. But this does not show how the net benefits
for converting will be greater than conventional.
(C) A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide
than does a water-conserving landscape.
Strengthens Yes. Rather than elaborate on the low savings, this one talks about the greater
existing costs on maintenance for conventional landscapes. Thus, points to the greater
benefits of converting over the conventional, strengthens existing argument.
Step 3: (D) (E)
(D) Majority of buildings in cities do not have yards at all.

No. Popularity of these yards is not related to whether water-conserving ones are better
Not relevant or worse than conventional ones.
(E) Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by
installing water-saving devices in their homes.
Not relevant No. Argument is not about conserving water in general. Its about the choice to convert
to water-conserving being better than keeping the existing system.
Step 4: Conclusion (C)
Original Attack
Convert to a water-conserving Defend #1: Strengthen Original

landscape Savings are too
small
Reduce outdoor water Savings less than
use, saves money $30 annually not
enough to cover
added expense Answer choice (C) shows how converting to a
water-conserving landscape has incremental
(C) A conventional landscape
generally requires a much greater benefits (+) over conventional
expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide
than does a water-conserving
landscape.

1. Camel Hump
4. Scoring Points
5. Postal Service
6. Armed Forces
Camel Hump
No reason to [conclude] since ___________

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
The camel is one of the most well known desert dwelling creatures. Camels began being tamed and
traded more than a thousand years ago. Prehistoric cave paintings in Egypt depict this animal as
having a large hump on its back. Fossils of this animal, however, do not show any hump. Nevertheless,
there is no reason to conclude that the cave paintings are therefore inaccurate in this regard, since
______.
(A) there are cave paintings in France which show prehistoric animals with a hump.
(B) camel fossils are more commonly found in Algeria rather than in Egypt.
(C) animal humps are composed of fatty tissue, which does not fossilize.
(D) the cave paintings of the camel were painted well before 1,000 years ago
(E) among the currently existing species of camel, only one of them has something resembling a
hump.
The camel is one of the most well known desert dwelling creatures. Camels were tamed and traded
more than a thousand years ago. Prehistoric cave paintings in Egypt depict this animal with a large
hump on its back. Fossils of this animal, however, do not show any hump. Nevertheless, there is no
reason to conclude that the cave paintings are therefore inaccurate in this regard, since ______.
What is the conclusion?

Cave paintings are inaccurate
What is the attack?

No reason to say they are inaccurate
Step 2: Visualize and Pre-think (Weakens Framework)
Paintings are inaccurate No reason to make
that conclusion Prethinking
attacking
I can explain why fossils dont have hump
Whats different about fossils
that would cause it to result in
Both paintings and fossils Paintings
Hump no hump ??
should have hump A B
Argument expects the same outcome.
Fossils No Hump
C Not B Recognize Framework #3 Helps Explain
to help explain why outcomes are
different and should be different.
Step 3: (A) (B) (C)
Does this show that 1) there is something different about fossils that would result in no hump
(A) there are cave paintings in France which show prehistoric animals with a hump
Not relevant No. Mentions other paintings that show a hump but does not specifically say these are
cases where the corresponding fossil did NOT show a hump. Also says what was observed in
Egypt is same in France but this only addresses cave paintings not fossils.
(B) camel fossils are more commonly found in Algeria rather than in Egypt
Not relevant No. Mentions more camel fossils found elsewhere but nothing related to fossils not
showing a hump
(C) animal humps are composed of fatty tissue, which does not fossilize
Strengthens Yes. Mentions that humps would not show up in the fossils because they are tissue not bones
OK the same hump could then show up in paintings.
Step 3: (D) (E)
Does this show that 1) there is something different about fossils that would result in no hump
(D) the cave paintings of the camel were painted well before 1,000 years ago
Not relevant No. Mentions paintings were quite old but nothing related to fossils not showing a hump
(E) among the currently existing species of camel, only one of them has something resembling a hump.
Not relevant No. Mentions hump only exists for 1 camel species today but not related to fossils not
showing a hump
Step 4: Conclusion (C)
Paintings are inaccurate No reason to make
that conclusion I can explain why fossils dont have hump
attacking
Both paintings and fossils Paintings

Hump
should have hump A B (C) animal humps are
composed of fatty tissue,
No Hump
which does not fossilize
Fossils
C Not B
Forecasting Weather (B)
Cast the most serious doubt

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most serious doubt on the meteorologists boast?
(A) The amount of energy that the Earth receives from the Sun is monitored closely and is known not to be
constant.
(B) Volcanic eruptions, the combustion of fossil fuels, and several other processes that also cannot be
quantified with any accuracy are known to have a significant and continuing impact on the constitution of
the atmosphere.
(C) As current models of the atmosphere are improved, even small increments in complexity will mean large
increases in the number of computers required for the representation of the models.
(D) Frequent and accurate data about the atmosphere collected at a large number of points both on and
above the ground are a prerequisite for the construction of a good model of the atmosphere.
(E) With existing models of the atmosphere, large scale weather patterns can be predicted with greater
accuracy than can relatively local weather patterns.

Accurate model forecast precision
What is the attack?

Above connection is invalid
Original Attack
Forecast with precision Thats an idle boast, cant

be evaluated Prethinking
If accurate
Blame wrong 1) Weaken #3 disqualify the link between
model
forecasts on accurate model and precise forecast
errors in model
Cast doubt
Show that precise forecast cannot be obtained even with accurate model
Step 3: (A) (B) (C)
Meteorologists say that if only they could design an accurate mathematical model of the atmosphere with all its
complexities, they could forecast the weather with real precision. But this is an idle boast, immune to any evaluation, for
any inadequate weather forecast would obviously be blamed on imperfections in the model.
Does this show that 1) weaken #3 disqualify link in original or 2) weaken #1/#2
(A) The amount of energy that the Earth receives from the Sun is monitored closely and is known not to be constant.
No. Energy from sun being variable / changing does not clearly affect model. Even if it does,
Not relevant
even if it decreases accuracy we dont care about that. In argument, we just care about the
hypothetical situation where models accurate, then what the conclusion would be.
(B) Volcanic eruptions, the combustion of fossil fuels, and several other processes that also cannot be
quantified with any accuracy are known to have a significant and continuing impact on the constitution of
the atmosphere.
Yes. Mentions important variables that cannot be captured with models. Thus accurate model
Weakens link in original
not closely linked to precise forecast weakens original argument by disqualifying the link.
(C) As current models of the atmosphere are improved, even small increments in complexity will mean large increases
in the number of computers required for the representation of the models.
Not relevant No. Mentions large increase in computers to process models for improvements this
detail about model is not linked to forecast precision.
Step 3: (D) (E)
Does this show that 1) weaken #3 disqualify link in original or 2) weaken #1/#2
(D) Frequent and accurate data about the atmosphere collected at a large number of points both on and
above the ground are a prerequisite for the construction of a good model of the atmosphere.
Not relevant
No. Mentions details needed for accurate model but this is not linked to forecast
precision
(E) With existing models of the atmosphere, large scale weather patterns can be predicted with greater
accuracy than can relatively local weather patterns.
Not relevant No. Mentions segmentation for model being better forecast for large scale over local.
Argument is about new future models, not existing models. And we dont care about the
segmentation, we care about the overall forecast precision instead.
Step 4: Conclusion (B)
Original Attack Weaken #3: Disqualify support-

conclusion link
Forecast with precision Thats an idle boast, cant
be evaluated
If accurate
model Blame wrong
forecasts on
errors in model
(B) Volcanic eruptions, the combustion of fossil

fuels, and several other processes that also
cannot be quantified with any accuracy are known
to have a significant and continuing impact on the
Show that precise forecast cannot be obtained constitution of the atmosphere.
even with accurate model
Polyester and Nylon Prices
Most seriously weakens

Unlike the wholesale price of raw polyester, the wholesale price of raw nylon has fallen considerably in the last
year. Thus, although the retail price of nylon clothing at retail clothing stores has not yet fallen, it will inevitably
fall.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) The cost of processing raw nylon for cloth has increased during the last year.
(B) The wholesale price of raw polyester is typically higher than that of the same volume of raw nylon.
(C) The operating costs of the average retail clothing store have remained constant during the last year.
(D) Changes in retail prices always lag behind changes in wholesale prices.
(E) The cost of harvesting raw nylon has increased in the last year.
fall.

retail price of nylon clothing will inevitably fall
fall.
Original Attack
Retail price of nylon will
fall (just not yet) ?
Prethinking
Whole sale nylon 1) Weaken #3 disqualify the link between
has fallen already wholesale and retail
Argument assumes that retail price will fall since

whole sale prices have fallen
Step 3: (A) (B) (C)
fall.
Does this show that 1) weaken #3 disqualify link in original
(A) The cost of processing raw nylon for cloth has increased during the last year.
If costs go up, Yes. Introduces processing cost as possible explanation for keeping retail price much
retail price might higher than wholesale price since wholesale price + processing cost = retail price
actually go up,
not down
(B) The wholesale price of raw polyester is typically higher than that of the same volume of raw nylon.
Not relevant No. Mentions higher wholesale for polyester vs nylon. But argument does not care about
polyester only nylon wholesale vs retail.
(C) The operating costs of the average retail clothing store have remained constant during the last year.
Possibly No. Mentions no change in operating costs. Thus operating costs are not a factor in any
supports price difference between wholesale and retail. This would suggest that wholesale/retail
prices should be the same. Supports rather than weakens.
Step 3: (D) (E)
fall.
Does this show that 1) weaken #3 disqualify link in original
(D) Changes in retail prices always lag behind changes in wholesale prices.
Strengthens
No. Mentions why there is a lag and prices will inevitably fall. But this supports the
original argument, not weakens it.
(E) The cost of harvesting raw nylon has increased in the last year.
No. Mentions cost of harvesting nylon. But harvesting cost is the cost that would factor
Conflicting
info before wholesale, not between wholesale and retail. But passage already states that
wholesale nylon has fallen big. Answer choice E would just conflict with existing info.
Step 4: Conclusion (A)
fall.
Weaken #3: Disqualify support-conclusion link
Original Attack (A) The cost of processing raw nylon for cloth
has increased during the last year.
Retail price of nylon will Retail price higher is due to
fall (just not yet) increased processing costs
for nylon
Wholesale nylon
has fallen already
Explains why retail price of nylon might NOT fall even

though whole prices did fall.
Scoring Points
Most vulnerable to criticism on which of these grounds

Debater: The average points scored per game by a player on the starting roster of the New York Boomerangs
is 12 points. Most players of the New York Boomerangs are on the starting roster. Furthermore, the average
points scored per game by any player on the team generally does not fluctuate much from game to game.
Therefore, each game, most players of the New York Boomerangs almost certainly score at least a few points.
The debater's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of these grounds?
(A) It takes for granted that the starting roster is representative of the overall team with regard to the average
points scored per player each game.
(B) It takes for granted that if a certain average of points is scored each game by each player of the New York
Boomerangs, then approximately the same amount of points must be scored in each game by each player
of the starting roster.
(C) It confuses a claim from which the argument's conclusion about the New York Boomerangs would
necessarily follow with a claim that would follow from the argument's conclusion only with a high degree of
probability.
(D) It overlooks the possibility that even if, on average, a certain amount of points is scored by the members of
some group, many members of that group may score no points at all.
(E) It overlooks the possibility that even if most players of the team score some points each game, any one
team player may, in some games, score no points.

Most players score at least a few points
What is the attack?

?
Original Attack
Most players score at least a

Possible that most
few points
players can score 0
points. Prethinking
Avg points = 12 Most players = starting roster
Most players on
starting roster ? Translate conclusion to:
Avg pts/player does
starting roster scores at least a few points
not fluctuate
Weaken #1: Opposite conclusion: negate
conclusion and support it
Can we show how players on starting roster can
score 0 points?
Step 3: (A) (B) (C)
Does this 1) explain how most of starting roster players can score 0 points?
(A) It takes for granted that the starting roster is representative of the overall team with regard to the average
points scored per player each game.
Does not attack No. Mentions starting roster is representative of whole team, but this does not attack.
(B) It takes for granted that if a certain average of points is scored each game by each player of the New York
Boomerangs, then approximately the same amount of points must be scored in each game by each player
of the starting roster.
Does not attack
No. Not related to attacking argument showing how most players might not score at
least a few points.
(C) It confuses a claim from which the argument's conclusion about the New York Boomerangs would
necessarily follow with a claim that would follow from the argument's conclusion only with a high degree of
probability.
No. Mentions degree of probability but argument is already using most. No confusion
Not relevant
here. The issue has more to do with saying this probability argument is invalid.
Step 3: (D) (E)

Does this 1) explain how most of starting roster players can score 0 points?
(D) It overlooks the possibility that even if, on average, a certain amount of points is scored by the
members of some group, many members of that group may score no points at all.
Weakens Yes. Mentions possibility and shows how most groups can score 0, yet avg points is still
conclusion 12. This can occur when top players score a lot of points and most of roster scores 0.
Thats possible, thus possibility that conclusion is false would weaken the conclusion.
(E) It overlooks the possibility that even if most players of the team score some points each game, any one
team player may, in some games, score no points.
Close, but does No. Mentions that its possible that 1 player may score 0 points. Similar to (D) but this
not fully does not weaken the original argument which uses the word most. By showing only
weaken
conclusion
how 1 player can score 0 points is not the same as saying possible for most players to
score 0 points.
Original Attack Weaken #1: Opposite conclusion
Most players score at least a

Possible that most
few points
players can score 0
points.
Avg points = 12
(D) It overlooks the possibility that even if, on
Most players on Starting roster can average, a certain amount of points is scored
starting roster have many
Avg pts/player does by the members of some group, many
members score 0, members of that group may score no points
not fluctuate and few top at all.
players score lots
of points. Avg will
still be 12
Postal Service
Would allay fears

In the United States, the Postal Service has a monopoly on first-class mail, but much of what is sent first class
could be transmitted electronically. Electronic transmittal operators argue that if the Postal Service were to
offer electronic transmission, it would have an unfair advantage, since its electronic transmission service could
be subsidized from the profits of the monopoly.
Which of the following, if each is true, would allay the electronic transmittal operators' fears of unfair
competition?
(A) If the Postal Service were to offer electronic transmission, it could not make a profit on first-class mail.
(B) If the Postal Service were to offer electronic transmission, it would have a monopoly on that kind of
service.
(C) Much of the material that is now sent by first-class mail could be delivered much faster by special package
couriers, but is not sent that way because of cost.
(D) There is no economy of scale in electronic transmission-that is, the cost per transaction does not go down
as more pieces of information are transmitted.
(E) Electronic transmission will never be cost-effective for material not sent by first-class mail such as
newspapers and bulk mail.
competition?

Postal Service would have unfair advantage
What is the attack?

Actually OK
competition?
Original Attack
If Postal Service offers
electronic, PS would have unfair
advantage Actually OK Prethinking
Electronic service could Show how postal service would NOT have an
be subsidized from its advantage.
monopoly profits ?
Weaken #2 opposite supporting leg, try this first
since they give information about this already.
Or Weaken #3 can monopoly profits actually be

used toward this new venture?
Step 3: (A) (B) (C)
competition?
Does this show how 1) weaken #3 subsidy with monopoly profits necessarily means unfair competition?
2) Weaken #2 it can actually get subsidized?
(A) If the Postal Service were to offer electronic transmission, it could not make a profit on first-class
mail.
Yes. No profit on first class mail is no profit on its monopoly business. So if it offered
Weakens #2
electronic transmission, its existing monopoly business would not make a profit. No
profits to subsidize the new business thus no advantage.
(B) If the Postal Service were to offer electronic transmission, it would have a monopoly on that kind of
service.
Strengthens PS No. Mentions even more advantages for Postal Service not disadvantages.
(C) Much of the material that is now sent by first-class mail could be delivered much faster by special package
couriers, but is not sent that way because of cost.
Strengthens PS No. Mentions limitation on first-class mail but people still use it anyway. Further shows
the domination that Postal Service has.
Step 3: (D) (E)
competition?
Does this show how 1) weaken #3 subsidy with monopoly profits necessarily means unfair competition?
2) Weaken #2 it can actually get subsidized?
(D) There is no economy of scale in electronic transmission-that is, the cost per transaction does not go down
as more pieces of information are transmitted.
Does not
No. Mentions limitations of new business but Postal Service still has profits funding
weaken this new venture.
(E) Electronic transmission will never be cost-effective for material not sent by first-class mail such as
newspapers and bulk mail.
Does not No. Mentions negative/limitation of new business but Postal Service still has profits
weaken
funding this new venture still have advantage.
Step 4: Conclusion (A)
competition?
Weaken #2: Opposite supporting leg
Original Attack
If Postal Service offers
electronic, PS would have unfair
advantage Actually OK (A) If the Postal Service were to offer
Electronic service could electronic transmission, it could not make
be subsidized from its a profit on first-class mail.
monopoly profits No monopoly
profits if enter
new venture
Armed Forces
Would reveal the absurdity of the conclusion

During the Second World War, about 375,000 civilians died in the United States and about 408,000 members
of the United States armed forces died overseas. On the basis of those figures, it can be concluded that it was
not much more dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces during the Second World War than it was to
stay at home as a civilian.
Which of the following would reveal most clearly the absurdity of the conclusion drawn above?
(A) Counting deaths among members of the armed forces who served in the United States in addition to
deaths among members of the armed forces serving overseas
(B) Expressing the difference between the numbers of deaths among civilians and members of the armed
forces as a percentage of the total number of deaths
(C) Separating deaths caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat
injuries
(D) Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of
deaths
(E) Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed
forces.

Not much more dangerous overseas than at home
What is the attack?

?
Original Attack
Overseas not much more

dangerous Overseas WAS more Prethinking
dangerous
307 in US Weaken #1: Opposite Conclusion
408 Overseas Weaken by supporting opposite conclusion
?
overseas was indeed more dangerous.
Step 3: (A) (B) (C)
Does this attack and show how 1) overseas actually could have been more dangerous
(A) Counting deaths among members of the armed forces who served in the United States in addition to
deaths among members of the armed forces serving overseas
Not relevant No. Mentions new segmentation home armed forces not related to the argument
which is about home civilians and overseas armed forces.
(B) Expressing the difference between the numbers of deaths among civilians and members of the armed
forces as a percentage of the total number of deaths
No. Mentions calculating deaths as a % of total deaths, but if % is an estimate for
Not comparable danger, we want to compare % local vs % overseas not % overall for both.
(C) Separating deaths caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat
injuries
No. Mentions segmentation of deaths in armed forces not related. We care about the
Irrelevant
segmentation
overall armed forces group being compared to home civilians.
Step 3: (D) (E)
Does this attack and show how 1) overseas actually could have been more dangerous
(D) Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers
of deaths
Yes. By looking at rates (likelihood of death) rather than overall numbers, the rate would
Weakens likely be higher overseas since it will exclude a large portion of the population. Thus a
higher rate would indicate more danger the opposite conclusion, thus weakened.
(E) Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed
forces.
No. Looks at a segmentation of home deaths and compares to a segmentation of
Not relevant
overseas combat deaths. We are interested in overall, not segmentation; further the
segmentations are not comparable.
Weaken #1: Opposite conclusion
Original Attack
Overseas not much more

dangerous Overseas WAS more (D) Comparing death rates per thousand
dangerous members of each group rather than
307 in US comparing total numbers of deaths.
Comparing
408 Overseas death rates
would likely
show low % for
home and high
% overseas

CR Framework Applications - Weakens

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CR Framework Applications - Weakens

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Critical Reasoning

Framework #6A Defends

Framework #6A Defends

Best be used for arguing against the authors position

What is the original argument?

What is the attack?

(B) Most significant gains in the

Most seriously weaken the objection

(A) In 2012 Webflix rented out more DVDs than it sold.

What is the original conclusion?

What is the attack?

(A) In 2012 Webflix rented out more DVDs than it sold.

Defend #2: Weaken the attack

Decline due to launch of Webflix

Counters the objection

What is the original conclusion?

What is the attack?

Original Attack Defend #2: weaken the attack degree of attack is

Avoid Nitrous Oxide and Electricity

Rebuttal to friends criticism

(D) Majority of buildings in cities do not have yards at all.

What is the original conclusion?

What is the attack?

(D) Majority of buildings in cities do not have yards at all.

Convert to a water-conserving Defend #1: Strengthen Original

Framework #6A Defends

No reason to [conclude] since ___________

What is the conclusion?

What is the attack?

Both paintings and fossils Paintings

Cast the most serious doubt

What is the original argument?

What is the attack?

Forecast with precision Thats an idle boast, cant

Original Attack Weaken #3: Disqualify support-

(B) Volcanic eruptions, the combustion of fossil

Most seriously weakens

What is the original argument?

Argument assumes that retail price will fall since

Does this show that 1) weaken #3 disqualify link in original

Does this show that 1) weaken #3 disqualify link in original

Weaken #3: Disqualify support-conclusion link

Explains why retail price of nylon might NOT fall even

Most vulnerable to criticism on which of these grounds

The debater's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of these grounds?

The debater's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of these grounds?

What is the original conclusion?

What is the attack?

The debater's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of these grounds?

Most players score at least a

The debater's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of these grounds?

The debater's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of these grounds?

The debater's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of these grounds?

Original Attack Weaken #1: Opposite conclusion

Most players score at least a

Would allay fears

What is the original conclusion?

What is the attack?

Or Weaken #3 can monopoly profits actually be

Would reveal the absurdity of the conclusion

What is the original conclusion?

What is the attack?

Overseas not much more

Weaken #1: Opposite conclusion