What is the argument here? The beverage company representative is saying that the switchover to the new rings will eliminate the threat of suffocation that the plastic rings pose to wild animals. The problem with answer choice (E) is that it does not show that the threat of suffocation has been eliminated. It merely shows how the new rings could be harmful to aquatic animals when ingested. Do you see the difference? Posing a threat is different from posing a threat of suffocation. To weaken the argument we need to show a situation where the threat of suffocation is still viable. That is why answer choice (B) is our correct answer. The old plastic rings that are left over still pose the threat of suffocation. Therefore, the beverage company representative is wrong in concluding that the completion of the switchover will eliminate the threat of suffocation that the plastic rings posed.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any more questions.
Julie-VJuly 16, 2019
What would be the reasoning behind eliminating answer choice A?
AlexFebruary 24, 2020
By taking two years for the switch over for the new rings, the threat of suffocation is still exists. Answer choice B is the answer since even with the new plastic rings, there are still old plastic rings left in existence that still pose a threat of suffocation. So, the switchover will not completely eliminate the threat of suffocation.
RaviMarch 19, 2020
@Julie-V and @Alex,
Let's take a look.
Regarding (A), we have to keep the conclusion of the argument in our heads. The conclusion is limited to what'll happen once the switchover is finished. Many animals might die between now and then, but that does not hurt the conclusion that they'll stop dying once the rings are universally used. Thus, (A) doesn't weaken the argument, so it's out.
Alex, great analysis. That's correct.
Both of you are doing great. Keep up the hard work, and let us know if you have any other questions!
123June 17, 2020
I felt like E was definitely the "trap" answer. In previous questions, we've been given a broader conclusion such as "animals would not be in as much danger", but this one narrows the actual conclusion to suffocation and our answer choice must relate to actual suffocation, not just harming animals in general.
