PT 30 Section 2 #9
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 3:07 am
The stimulus says that a running track with a hard surface is better for inducing quicker times than a soft surface, because a runner's foot will be in contact with the hard surface for a shorter period of time.
The problem I have with this one is how the question stem is phrased. If I am looking for an answer choice which shows the above explanation to be only a partial one, then (C) is obviously the answer.
But what if this was just a classic weaken question, meaning the question stem explicity said to "cast doubt on the argument?" In that case, wouldn't (C) actually be a strengthener? The way I see it, the conclusion is that hard surface is better for speed. So (C) supports that statement by giving another reason how hard surface enhances a runner's speed.
I guess the reason I'm asking this is because I'm not sure what to weaken: the conclusion (that hard tracks are faster) or the entire argument (hard tracks are faster because the foot is in contact with the surface shorter).
Thank you.
The problem I have with this one is how the question stem is phrased. If I am looking for an answer choice which shows the above explanation to be only a partial one, then (C) is obviously the answer.
But what if this was just a classic weaken question, meaning the question stem explicity said to "cast doubt on the argument?" In that case, wouldn't (C) actually be a strengthener? The way I see it, the conclusion is that hard surface is better for speed. So (C) supports that statement by giving another reason how hard surface enhances a runner's speed.
I guess the reason I'm asking this is because I'm not sure what to weaken: the conclusion (that hard tracks are faster) or the entire argument (hard tracks are faster because the foot is in contact with the surface shorter).
Thank you.