In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland’s industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia’s industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland’s industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia’s are.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.
(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.
(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.

OA: C


Simplifying the argument:

  • technological improvements —> increase labor productivity
  • labor productivity: Parland’s  > Vergia’s
  • Conclusion: technological improvements: Parland’s  > Vergia’s

Type: Flaw in reasoning

Prephrasing: imlying that technological improvement is the only cause of  labor productivity increase

POE:

(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.

=> paraphrase: the conclusion did not paraphrase any information in the argument => eliminate
(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.

=> there are no contrast between facts/ evidence in the argument => eliminate
(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.

=> Correct.
(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.

=> Condition: technological improvements; effect: increase labor productivity

The argument did not mention that “technological improvements” is an effect of ” increase labor productivity”  => eliminate
(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.

=> The argument did not presupposes that “Parland’s industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia’s are.” => eliminate

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s