Q22 - Drama critic: audiences will enjoy Warner's latest pla

[shirando21]

This is a weaken except question

I was able to narrow down to B and D, but I picked B.

I think B, by saying "unbroken history", is something happened before, that can not indicate anything for now or future. As in PT 31, LR1, Q19, the weaken question about the flowers Drew received, we did not choose D because what happened before is not related to the current situation.

I don't understand, why in this question, B weakens the argument.

Anyone can help?

[patrice.antoine]

Let's first identify the argument core. The core is:

"Audiences will enjoy Warner's latest play"

Why?

Becase of:

1. Superb acting;
2. Intense chemistry between t he actors; and
3. Ziegler's convincing capture of the guilt and despair experienced


For a weaken EXCEPT question, we are looking for an answer choice that (a) strengthens or (b) does nothing (neither strengthens nor weakens the stimulus).

Answer choice (B) weakens the argument by suggesting that the play has a history of dull performances. The reader can safely assume here that a dull performance may very well not be enjoyed by an audience. Similar reasoning can be drawn with answer choice (A).

The correct answer choice (D) does nothing to help or hurt the argument core and as such, is our correct answer choice.

[shirando21]

Let's first identify the argument core. The core is:

"Audiences will enjoy Warner's latest play"

Why?

Becase of:

1. Superb acting;
2. Intense chemistry between t he actors; and
3. Ziegler's convincing capture of the guilt and despair experienced


For a weaken EXCEPT question, we are looking for an answer choice that (a) strengthens or (b) does nothing (neither strengthens nor weakens the stimulus).

Answer choice (B) weakens the argument by suggesting that the play has a history of dull performances. The reader can safely assume here that a dull performance may very well not be enjoyed by an audience. Similar reasoning can be drawn with answer choice (A).

The correct answer choice (D) does nothing to help or hurt the argument core and as such, is our correct answer choice.

No, strictly speaking, the history of dull performance does not guarantee this one will be dull.

Any instructor?

[patrice.antoine]

Let's first identify the argument core. The core is:

"Audiences will enjoy Warner's latest play"

Why?

Becase of:

1. Superb acting;
2. Intense chemistry between t he actors; and
3. Ziegler's convincing capture of the guilt and despair experienced


For a weaken EXCEPT question, we are looking for an answer choice that (a) strengthens or (b) does nothing (neither strengthens nor weakens the stimulus).

Answer choice (B) weakens the argument by suggesting that the play has a history of dull performances. The reader can safely assume here that a dull performance may very well not be enjoyed by an audience. Similar reasoning can be drawn with answer choice (A).

The correct answer choice (D) does nothing to help or hurt the argument core and as such, is our correct answer choice.

No, strictly speaking, the history of dull performance does not guarantee this one will be dull.

Any instructor?

Guarantee? We are not looking for an answer choice that guarantees anything (ie MUST BE TRUE). We are, however, looking to CAST DOUBT, which is what a weakener does. The fact that there is a history of dull performance does cast doubt on the play being enjoyed by the audience.

You're looking for confirmed assurances when it is not necessary for this question.

[shirando21]

can you look into PT 31, LR1, Q19 and explain why we do not choose D for that question?

[patrice.antoine]

can you look into PT 31, LR1, Q19 and explain why we do not choose D for that question?

I believe a thorough explanation was given below:

q19-if-the-flowers-drew-received-t686.html


...however, I think I understand your reasoning. You're wondering why a similar answer choice in one question was not chosen as the correct answer (PT31) when we are presented with a similarly phrased answer choice in this question that can be seen as a weakener.

I think it simply comes down to what the question is asking of us. PT31's question asks us to find the the one answer choice that MOST weakens versus this question which ask us to find an answer choice that does not weaken. Answer choice (D) in PT31 does weaken however, when compared to answer choice (B) it does not cast the most doubt (as Matt explained, answer choice (D) leaves room for the possibility that the florist could have delivered the wrong flowers to Drew this timearound).

You're being asked to do something different here (look for the answer choice that either does not weaken or does nothing) v. what you're asked to do in PT31's question which is compare all the answer choices together and see which casts the MOST doubt.

Perhaps an instructor can chime in here, but that is how I tackled both questions. IMHO, they do not compare because they are asking us to approach each question differently.

[nicholasasquith]

Just wondering, but I picked E and it was because I totally ignored who was the speaker.

Suppose this argument was made without identifying the speaker, wouldn't that make E irrelevant then? Little things like this remind me not to overlook anything and trust in the process.

[zip]

Just wondering, but I picked E and it was because I totally ignored who was the speaker.

Suppose this argument was made without identifying the speaker, wouldn't that make E irrelevant then? Little things like this remind me not to overlook anything and trust in the process.

I just thought it strange that E was an option. The fact that people don't generally find critics reliable really doesn't weaken the argument. It attacks the person, based on popular appeal. So it was a wild card. Though the fact that, however tenuously and even fallaciously, it attacks the argument by questioning the speakers judgment it was wrong... particular since B had no connection with the argument or its source.

[ottoman]

I cannot see how answer E could weaken the argument.
Can someone explain it?

Thanks!

[sumukh09]

I cannot see how answer E could weaken the argument.
Can someone explain it?

Thanks!

If audiences usually find drama critics' reviews unreliable then the conclusion by this drama critic, that audiences will enjoy Warner's latest play, loses merit and consequently weakens the argument.

[lhermary]

I'm still not seeing how B is wrong. If anyone can go into more detail.

IMO, the argument that can be made for B can equally be made for D. Both having no bearing on the conclusion. I'm just guessing at this point.

[sumukh09]

I'm still not seeing how B is wrong. If anyone can go into more detail.

IMO, the argument that can be made for B can equally be made for D. Both having no bearing on the conclusion. I'm just guessing at this point.

B weakens the argument pretty nicely. "Unbroken history of dull performances." What that implies is each and every play prior to this one was dull; chances are, this play will follow that unbroken pattern of dull performances. If the performance is dull, then the conclusion that audiences will enjoy the latest play is weakened. D on the other hand has no bearing on the conclusion. So what if the play is similar to plots of Warner's other works? How does the fact that this play is similar to his other works impact the conclusion that audiences will enjoy the play? It doesn't, because we don't know how audiences reacted to his other plots.

[mydota]

can you look into PT 31, LR1, Q19 and explain why we do not choose D for that question?

PT31, LR1, Q19 is different. There are two possibilities in the conclusion, which is either delivered the wrong flower or didn't give a card. A history of correct flower delivery only shows that it's more likely to be the forgotten card, and this does not weaken the argument.

[coco.wu1993]

I still don't understand why E is wrong.

The argument core is:
Premise: The play has superb acting.
Conclusion: Audiences will enjoy the play.

How will E weaken this argument?

[ohthatpatrick]

I'll go ahead and put a complete explanation up since there hasn't been one yet.

Question Type: Weaken EXCEPT

Task: Eliminate the four answer choices that weaken the argument the most. Select the answer that either strengthens the argument is or simply irrelevant.

Argument Core:

Conc:
Audiences will enjoy Warner's latest play
why?
Prem:
- superb acting
- intense chemistry
- captures guilt and despair of an estranged, disintegrating family

Remember, especially on Strengthen/Weaken EXCEPT questions, that there are many ways to strengthen/weaken an argument:
1. Point out a Potential Objection (a way the premises could be true but the conclusion still false -- in this case, a way that "audiences would NOT enjoy the latest play")
2. Call into question a Missing Link (in this case such stuff as "superb acting is a reason an audience would enjoy a play")
3. Present information that attacks the truth of the conclusion(these don't have to relate to premises ... an idea like "every audience member who saw the dress rehearsal of this play did not enjoy it")
4. Undermine the credibility of the evidence ... this type of answer becomes more likely when the evidence is something potentially sketchy, such as a survey, sample, statistic, testimonial

These are kind of arbitrary distinctions. Ultimately these all relate to assumptions. #4 for instance relates to the assumption that "the evidence is credible and trustworthy". But for me it's helpful to see the variety of ways a good answer can function.

(A) This weakens by doing #1. Sure there's great acting and chemistry, but the dark, depressing topic might keep people from enjoying it. We, of course, have to accept that the depressing topic qualifies as leaning towards tragedy.

(B) This feels like #3. If the people putting the play on have ALWAYS put on dull performances, it's unlikely they have suddenly put on an enjoyable performance.

(C) This is #3. Bad reviews of this play work AGAINST the truth of the conclusion.

(D) Similarity to other works by Warner doesn't have a positive or negative value. Are Warner's other works enjoyable? Who knows? There's no information about other works, and there's no common sense way to label "similar in some respects to other plays by Warner" as a positive or negative aspect. This is incredibly weakly worded, "similar in some respects" means that there is at least one plot similarity. By that standard, "Star Wars" and "Pretty Woman" are similar movies because they both involve romantic tension between two of the lead actors.

(E) The evidence given for the conclusion consists entirely of subjective claims. SUPERB acting, INTENSE chemistry, CONVINCING performances. So if the source of these opinions has its credibility undermined, then the argument has no credible leg to stand on. Saying that audiences USUALLY don't agree with a critic's review guarantees nothing (none of these answers do), but it definitely introduces doubt that an audience will agree with a critic's assessment.

You may have been uncomfortable with (E) because it attacks the premise rather than the reasoning/conclusion.

You may have been uncomfortable with (E) because it doesn't guarantee whether THIS critic's reviews are usually found to be unreliable.

So just keep in mind for Weaken answers:
- you can weaken by undermining the credibility of the premise
- by introducing doubt, you're weakening an argument ... the answer doesn't have to prove anything to weaken
- on an EXCEPT question, some of the answers will feel like powerful weakeners (such as B), whereas others barely do anything (such as C and E). It doesn't matter. If it moves the needle, it weakens. (D) by contrast doesn't move the needle in either direction.

Hope this helps.

[ganbayou]

Hi,

I chose B because I thought it says something different from what the premise says...in premise it says "superb acting."
I thought this contradicts "dull performance" in B and because it attacks premise, I thought it is wrong.
But are they actually the same thing?

Thank you

[maryadkins]

Fair point—I'd probably pause on (B) for the same reason. But since "superb acting" is not necessarily the same thing as an exciting overall performance (which is a term that can refer only to acting OR can be meant more broadly...as in the entire performance/production, altogether), I'd not choose it unless the other four answer choices were clear losers.

(D) would jump out to me as a better answer to this question, because it has nothing to do with the argument. I'd choose it and never look back at (B) again!

[thwolfe]

Strange explanation for why E isn't the right answer:

If audiences usually find a review unreliable, then from the fact that the critic says the audience will enjoy the play we can suppose that audiences will tend to disagree somehow with the critic's conclusion. The critic's conclusion is that audiences will enjoy the play, so if audiences disagree with this conclusion then audiences will tend to not enjoy the play, therefore the argument's conclusion is weakened.

...But from this, wouldn't it follow that any conclusion of the critic about audience's reception is weakened? I think so. And if any conclusion is weakened, then this conclusion is also weakened, so E is incorrect.