Question

In 2002, according to a news poll, 36% of voters leaned toward party “Y”. In 2004, this figure rose to 46%. But in another survey the percentage was down to 40%. Therefore, party “Z” is likely to win the next election. Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the above conclusion?

• A. People tend to switch their votes at the last minute.
• B. It has been shown that 85% of the voters belonging to party “Y” vote in an election, compared to 80% of the voters belonging to party “Z”.
• C. 35% of people favour party “Z”.
• D. No one can predict how people will vote.

Hint:

The strongest weakener directly compares Z's own support to Y's remaining support, not a vague point about unpredictability.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Concept.
To weaken a conclusion that “Z will win because Y's support fell”, the strongest attack is a fact that directly shows Z is not actually ahead.

Step 2: Check option A.
Last-minute vote switching could help either party, so it does not target the conclusion specifically.

Step 3: Check option B.
Higher turnout among Y's voters compared to Z's voters, if anything, supports Y doing relatively better, but it does not give us the actual support numbers for Z, so it is an indirect and weaker point.

Step 4: Check option C.
If only 35% of people favour Z while Y still holds 40%, Z is behind Y, not ahead, which directly contradicts the idea that Z is “likely to win”. This is the most direct challenge to the conclusion.

Step 5: Check option D.
A vague statement about unpredictability does not specifically address the Y versus Z comparison.

Step 6: Final Answer.
Option C gives the clearest, most direct contradiction of the stated conclusion, so it is correct.