explaination in OG is not clear for any option
. In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services
per person‐hour worked. In Parland’s industries, labor productivity is signifi cantly higher than it is in Vergia’s industries.
Clearly, therefore, Parland’s industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia’s are.
The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.
(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support
of the same claim.
(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other
possible causes.
(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.
Hi Shilpi,
General info – In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services
per person‐hour worked
Evidence (single case) – In Parland’s industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia’s industries
Conclusion – Clearly, therefore, Parland’s industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia’s are
The argument clearly assumes that technological improvement is the only reason for increased labor productivity. However, according to the general info given, technological improvements will generally increase labor productivity. That doesn’t mean nothing else can cause the increase.
Option C points that out.
