Top Law Schools

The argument uses a study about a group of children in a program in which "most" children showed increase in achievement after the program.
The conclusion is skills learned in the program likely increase achievement
choice C: "many" children who completed the program had high GPA.
choice B: children who began but didn't complete the program had lower preprogram achievement than those who did

Something that says "all/most children who completed the program had high GPA" would weaken the argument by suggesting an alternate explanation, but it seems C shouldn't weaken as it only has "many". it's because those "some/many people" were never part of the support in the argument which was only based on "most people" so C is usually compatible with the argument.

shouldn't C not weaken as it only has "many"?
wouldn't B weaken slightly by suggesting an alternate explanation that those who completed the program were better achievers even before the program began?

appind wrote:The argument uses a study about a group of children in a program in which "most" children showed increase in achievement after the program.
The conclusion is skills learned in the program likely increase achievement
choice C: "many" children who completed the program had high GPA.
choice B: children who began but didn't complete the program had lower preprogram achievement than those who did

Something that says "all/most children who completed the program had high GPA" would weaken the argument by suggesting an alternate explanation, but it seems C shouldn't weaken as it only has "many". it's because those "some/many people" were never part of the support in the argument which was only based on "most people" so C is usually compatible with the argument.

shouldn't C not weaken as it only has "many"?
wouldn't B weaken slightly by suggesting an alternate explanation that those who completed the program were better achievers even before the program began?

I chose C and my reasoning was that B did not address that the program made them achieve higher , yes they could have already been high achievers but chess still made them better.

And for C many is subjective and can mean most, so it fit to me.

Between (B) and (C), I think it comes down to which one is more relevant to the argument core.

The conclusion is saying how reasoning power and spatial intuition could possibly play a role in increasing intellectual activity. (C) weakens by suggesting an alternative cause. It's not that reasoning power and intuition cause an increase in intellectual activity, but rather they have an INTEREST in staying on the chess team.

(B) on the other hand requires a further leap than (C). There's nothing in the stim suggesting unequal groups (one smarter than the other). So what if some children who did not successfully complete the program levels had lower levels of achievement? We're only concerned with the group that DID have higher levels of achievement, and what the possible causes are. The argument ASSUMED that it was because of their reasoning power, but (C) suggests it's because of their interest to remain on the chess team, which requires high GPA.

if the children who completed the program were naturally better achievers, then they didn't become so due to the program, and this is suggested by B. So B should weaken.

also, why the choice C that only has "many" weaken in this particular case?