PrepTest 118

Incorrect. The argument is about one material being better than another, not the switch solving all environmental problems. So this answer establishing that some problems would persist doesn't have any effect on the argument.

Incorrect. This answer aligns with the argument—we don't have to fully switch to see the benefits!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Goal — Hurt the environment less
Science — Nylon releases damaging gases; cotton fiber doesn't
Approach — Switch from nylon to cotton fiber in certain products

Answer Anticipation:
This argument recommends switching from one material to another in order to reduce the negative effects on the environment. It believes that this will happen because the production of the current material—nylon—releases environmentally damaging gases that the new material—cotton fiber—doesn't.

However it never establishes that reducing the amount of harmful gas released by making this switch will overall decrease the amount of damage to the environment! It's possible that cotton fiber harms the environment in other ways. Maybe harvesting the materials for instance pollutes more than the creation of nylon.

Any answer that suggests making this switch will actually result in more environmental harm will weaken the argument so let's look for that in an answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer doesn't match our anticipation—it doesn't bring up a way that switching to cotton fiber would increase pollution directly. However it does bring up a way that it would do so indirectly—by increasing the amount of nylon used in other products. If making this switch results in more nylon being produced then pollution would go up thus weakening the argument that this switch would help the environment.

Key Takeaway:
Your anticipation in many Weaken questions won't end up being correct. This is why it's important to balance any specific answer you anticipate with a general anticipation. Here knowing that we were looking for anything that suggested switching from nylon to cotton fiber wouldn't reduce pollution helped us catch answer choice (C) as correct even though our specific anticipation pointed in a slightly different direction.

Incorrect. This answer, if anything, strengthens the argument by establishing that moving away from nylon would reduce the amount of pollutants released into the environment.

Incorrect. This answer seems . . . obvious? It's not really adding much—it says if things aren't made from cotton fiber, then less cotton fiber will be made. The argument, however, is about one material replacing another, so this answer misses the mark.