Planting peach trees on their farm makes more sense for the Johnsons than planting apricot trees. Although fresh, loc...

AndreaK on October 15, 2019

Hi @Lauren-Au

Good question! In this stimulus, it’s really important to take note of the comparative language. This is a weaken question, and our conclusion is introduces a comparison of two things (that it is better to do one alternative than another). Weakening a conclusion of this nature should lead you to think about reasons why the unfavored alternative might actually be better, or the favored alternative isn’t all that great.

A) If apricots sell for a higher price than peaches, this weakens the conclusion that it makes more sense to plant peaches. Comparative language telling us that the apricots might be better than the peaches, bingo!

B) Strengthens the conclusion a little — gives us a reason it actually is better to plant peaches

C) If the costs of both are the same, this doesn’t really suggest that planting peach trees would be worse or that planting apricot trees would be better.

D) Awareness of the health benefits of eating fresh fruit has increased. But aren’t peaches also a fresh fruit? This could apply to them as well. This doesn’t establish the comparison we’re looking for.

E) General fact: Peach production has decreased dramatically. Okay, why? Would the reason why have any impact on why a family should or shouldn’t grow peaches? Maybe the reason peach production has decreased is because all the peach farmers got so rich growing peaches that they decided to retire early and move to Hawaii. So maybe then the Johnsons should definitely grow peaches, fill the gap in the market, get rich and move to Hawaii too! In other words, this falls short because it doesn’t give us a reason the Johnsons shouldn’t plant peaches, or a reason why maybe they should plant apricots.

Hope this helps you understand this one better :)

Lauren-Au on October 18, 2019

@AndreaK Thank you this helps a lot!! I really appreciate the explanation!

AndreaK on November 12, 2019

Awesome, glad to hear that @Lauren-Au ! Feel free to tag me if any more questions come up.

fady-yatooma on August 5, 2020

in A, Apricots sell at a much higher price but the stimulus never stablished that they cost the same or less than peaches, it says the opposite. Peach trees cost much less to purchase so even if apricots are sell much higher, we still would not know if that is making up the difference in the cost between the two and and the fact that peaches grow faster. but in D the market has grown for apricots as a result of the new awareness about the health benefits of fresh fruits, and that would weaken the argument because it is not clear that peaches have received the same reaction from the market. Please explain where my thinking is invalid.

fady-yatooma on August 6, 2020

^ Example: Peach trees cost $5 and grow 100 peaches in one month, a peach sells for a $1 making a total revenue of $100 and $95 in profit in one month and $200R/190P in two months. Apricot trees cost $20 and grow 100 Apricots in 2 months, an apricot sells for $2 (double that of peaches) generating a total revenue of $200 and a profit of $180. In comparison after two months: Peaches: 200R/190P, Apricots 200R/180P. The example could be more extreme but the point is that under this answer choice, the argument that peaches make more sense still holds and is not necessarily weakened in an extreme example.

Emil-Kunkin on November 2, 2023

A weakener does not have to completely destroy the argument in every hypothetical, it just has to, on this face, give us a reason to doubt the argument. A does exactly that: the argument makes the error of ignoring sale price when considering the choice of what to produce, and A hits in that flaw.