This is a weaken question and I am perplexed by the correct answer's wording (B).
" A stable national identity is typically a composite of a staggering number of subcultures."
The stimulus talks about fringe movements increasing and that modern culture threatens the national identities that now exist in the world.
The last part is the conclusion and we want to weaken it.
I did not like any of the other choices of course, but I do understand how they equivocate "subcultures" with things like fashion, religions, etc...? Am I simply unaware that those things can be considered a subculture?
I do question why (C) could not be seen as potentially weakening the argument. "The rate of cultural change in most countries will soon change drastically." Of course, that rate could be drastically an increase or a decrease. But it could weaken it if it were a decrease, no?
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm
- Posts: 6688
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:17 pm
Basically the commentator is saying that the rapid increase of fringe/modern/sub-cultures threatens national identity. Therefore, if a high number of subcultures is actually good for national identity, the commentator is incorrect. You basically answer why C is false: the change in the rate of change could decrease the number of these subcultures, but it could also increase it. It might be something that might affect the correctness of the commentator, but it is an illogical assumption to assume that it will.