Question

Read the arguments given below and answer the question that follows.

A number of independent studies have confirmed that XYZ minivans on an average have a better system of brakes as compared to any other minivans. Therefore, anyone wanting to buy a minivan solely on the basis of safety should buy XYZ minivans.

Which of the following most weakens the above conclusion?

• A. Independent studies have strong research methods which project reliable findings.
• B. EFG minivans have also fared better than ABC minivans on safety tests.
• C. In some studies ABC minivans gave better results in the brake tests.
• D. ABC minivans performed better than XYZ minivans in the frontal crash tests.

Hint:

Look for an option that introduces a different safety measure where XYZ minivans do not perform as well.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

This is an argument-based question. A single premise (XYZ minivans have better brakes on average) is used to build a broad conclusion (buy XYZ if safety is your only concern). To weaken this kind of argument, we need a fact that attacks the missing link between "good brakes" and "overall safety".

1. (a) Independent studies have strong research methods...: This actually strengthens the credibility of the data used in the argument, it does not attack the conclusion at all.
2. (b) EFG minivans have also fared better than ABC minivans...: ABC and EFG are outside vehicles that never appear in the original comparison between XYZ and other minivans, so this fact is irrelevant to the conclusion.
3. (c) In some studies ABC minivans gave better results in the brake tests...: This only creates a small doubt about the brake data itself, it does not challenge the bigger assumption that brakes decide overall safety.
4. (d) ABC minivans performed better than XYZ minivans in the frontal crash tests...: Crash performance is a direct measure of safety, just like brakes are. Showing that XYZ loses on this front proves that "better brakes" does not mean "safest minivan overall".

The correct option is (d). It exposes the real weakness in the argument: safety depends on more than one factor, and XYZ is not ahead on all of them.

Let's summarize:

• A conclusion built on one factor can be weakened by showing another factor where the claim does not hold.
• Options that talk about unrelated vehicles or only add credibility to the premise do not weaken anything.

So the answer is option (d), since it directly shows XYZ minivans are not superior once crash safety is also considered.