Top Law Schools

This is an EXCEPT weakening question.

I am not really sure how C weakens the reasoning in the argument, it just seems to undermine one of the premises and not the actual argument. One of the premises says that: data shows that the application for art history programs Ph.D programs has decreased over the past four years. Answer choice C seems to call into question the truth of this premise by suggesting that the data may be replete with errors. As you all know we are to accept the premises as true on the lsat.

it says the number of errors has INCREASED substantially over the last 4 years. this would mean that the decline in applicants would reflect an error rather than an actual decline. It doesn't undermine a premise because it says the "number of applicants REPORTED," not the actual number of applicants, so this answer choice weakens the connection between the premise and conclusion, which is what we want!

proteinshake wrote:it says the number of errors has INCREASED substantially over the last 4 years. this would mean that the decline in applicants would reflect an error rather than an actual decline. It doesn't undermine a premise because it says the "number of applicants REPORTED," not the actual number of applicants, so this answer choice weakens the connection between the premise and conclusion, which is what we want!

Thank you so much! I killed myself over this question, you explained it nicely. So basically C weakens because it offers an competing hypothesis (that being an increase in errors of the data) for the observed phenomena (decrease in reported applications), thus weakening the notion that it is attributable to a decline in interest from north american a graduates.

you got it!