61 LR One Question 11
- « 61 LR One Question 10
- 1958 of 3815
- 61 LR One Question 12 »
Comments
(C) doesn't explain the difference in time between silent waiters and honkers.
I chose E because I felt that anger could be a cause in the same way you explained pressure. Is anger still considered a "possessive" action because it's purpose is to delay the next car?
Well, that's a big part of it, but also, (E) doesn't do anything to refute the reasoning of this argument as regards situations when waiting drivers don't honk.
This is the general question about weaken. Is it possible the answer choice in Flaw can be that in weaken. if it is right, how can I distinguish the answer choices type between name flaw time and others like fails to consider and takes for granted, and anticipate them. For example with this question, I thought this is the sample flaw because psychologist generalized the conclusion with the shopping parking lot situation, That is the sample is small scope just shopping mall. because of this I took 2 minutes 25 seconds.
I wonder how to reduce the wasting time
I'm not completely certain that I understand your question correctly, but I'll say this:
Yes, the answer to a Weaken question can absolutely (and in fact always does!) attack the flaw of the argument.
In this case, there does seem to be a sampling error in the argument, so I understand why you'd want an answer attacking that error. However, as with many, many other arguments, there is an additional error here. So when none of the answer choices provides what you were looking for, you should either look for another different flaw in the argument, or else use your Correctness Tests to evaluate answer choices.
In this case, one additional error is the Causal Flaw, and that is the error that (A) attacks, in precisely the expected way.
Using your test for Weaken answers, you'd like to provide (A) as a rebuttal, precisely because it offers a competing explanation that if true does serious damage to the argument's conclusion about cause.
is C not correct bc you'd have to assume that "more difficult" caused an increase in the time it takes to vacate the spot?
No, I think it's fine to explain why something takes longer by just saying that it's more difficult to do.
The problem with (C) is that it doesn't explain the difference in time between silent waiters and honkers.