This is a Strengthen question.
We’re asked to find support for the paleontologist's hypothesis, which is the conclusion of the argument.
Here we have an argument that presents phenomena followed by a hypothesis that tries to explain the phenomena. We start with the set of dinosaurs, then we move into the subset called ornithomimids, which are birdlike, then we move into a further subset called the later-ornithomimids, which had toothless beaks and weak jaw muscles. A fossil of one particular member of that subset called G. bullatus shows a comblike plate inside its beak. We know that in modern birds like ducks and geese, plates like that are used to strain small bits of food from water and mud. So the argument concludes with a hypothesis that G. bullatus also fed by filtering food from water and mud.
The phenomenon is that G. bullatus has a comblike plate, and the hypothesis explains the function of the beak: for feeding. Support also comes from a premise about modern ducks and geese. That means this argument also uses reasoning by analogy. Therefore, one assumption is that the functionality of the beaks on ducks and geese is relevant as evidence of their function on G. bullatus .
As with most Strengthen and Weaken questions where the stimulus takes the form of phenomena-hypothesis, it's hard to anticipate the right answer choice because there are so many different directions that the question can go. Usually, the best strategy is POE.
Answer Choice (A) says some dinosaurs with toothless beaks and weak jaw muscles are believed to have pursued small prey and to have eaten eggs. First, it’s not clear how this is relevant to G. bullatus. If we assume that the dinosaurs in this answer exhibit similar behavior to G. bullatus, then that's not good for the hypothesis. This reveals that dinosaurs with toothless beaks can feed in some other manner. But this is not an effective Weaken answer choice either precisely because we have no reason to assume that the dinosaurs in this answer exhibit similar behavior to G. bullatus.
Answer Choice (B) says toothless beaks and weak jaw muscles were not common to any dinosaur group other than ornithomimids. All this tells us is that toothless beaks and weak jaw muscles are good evidence that the creature belonged to ornithomimids. If we were trying to identify a particular fossil and it showed signs of toothless beaks and weak jaw muscles, then this information might be helpful. However, the phenomenon we’re trying to explain above is what functionality comblike plates had. (B) doesn't help resolve that issue.
Answer Choice (C) says that except for the comblike plates in their beaks, G. bullatus shared few anatomical features with modern ducks and geese. (C) stresses points of dissimilarity between G. bullatus and modern ducks and geese. Whatever it's doing, it's certainly not strengthening the analogous reasoning above. But it's also not weakening that reasoning either, at least not by much, because (C) doesn't tell us what the few anatomical features that are shared between the two are. It merely tells us that there are few that are shared while most are not shared. But what we really need to know in order to either weaken or strengthen the reasoning by analogy is not just the proportion of similar to dissimilar features, but rather exactly which features are similar or dissimilar, because only the relevant similarities and dissimilarities matter, not all of them.
Correct Answer Choice (D) says most G. bullatus fossils have been found in sediments deposited in lakes, rivers, and other wet environments. This is evidence that corroborates the hypothesis by empirically confirming a prediction. If it's true that G. bullatus fed by filtering food from water and mud, then one would predict that these animals lived near water and mud. And if that's true, then one would expect to find their fossils near wet environments.
This is not dispositive evidence that the hypothesis is true. It is just another piece of evidence that gives a bit more weight to the hypothesis. In other words, it strengthens. You can see this by changing the quantifier on this answer choice. If instead of “most,” it said “nearly half,” or “some,” then the weight of this evidence diminishes accordingly. In fact, if it said “none,” then this would disconfirm a prediction of the hypothesis, which would weaken the hypothesis. Now, you might have concerns in the back of your mind like, “Wait, we’re talking about fossils, and surely after tens of millions of years, the fossils moved around.” Those are legitimate concerns. But I think the answer choice largely takes care of that by telling us that the fossils were found in sediments deposited near wet environments.
Answer Choice (E) says paleontologists have not found evidence that any dinosaur other than G. bullatus had comblike plates. This is similar to (B). If the issue above was that of identification, like if we had to figure out what species a particular fossil belonged to, then (E) may be relevant. If G. bullatus is unique in having comblike plates, then finding a fossil with comblike plates is evidence that the fossil is one of G. bullatus. But this is not the issue in the argument above. Rather, the issue is about the functionality of the comblike plates.
Of the dinosaurs of the birdlike group called ornithomimids, the later ones had toothless beaks and weak jaw muscles. A fossil of the later ornithomimid species Gallimimus bullatus was found to have remnants of a comblike plate inside the beak. Such plates are found in modern ducks and geese, animals that strain small bits of food from water and mud. Paleontologists therefore hypothesize that G. bullatus fed by filtering food from water and mud.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The paleontologists hypothesize that G. bullatus fed by filtering food from water and mud. They support this by noting that a fossil of G. bullatus had a comblike plate in its beak, similar to those found in ducks and geese today, which use them to strain food from water and mud.
Notable Assumptions
The paleontologists assume that G. bullatus could feed by filtering food from water and mud, and that factors like a very dry climate or a different diet didn't interfere with this. They also assume that the comblike plate had no other potential purpose that would better explain its presence, and that G. bullatus and modern ducks and geese are relevantly similar in enough ways to make the paleontologists’ hypothesis likely.
A
Some dinosaurs with toothless beaks and weak jaw muscles are believed to have pursued small prey and to have eaten eggs.
This fails to address the paleontologists’ key claim that G. bullatus’s comblike plate is evidence that it fed by filtering food from water and mud, nor does it help to make this hypothesis more likely.
B
Toothless beaks and weak jaw muscles were not common to any dinosaur group other than ornithomimids.
Like (A), this ignores the paleontologists’ primary argument, which is about the comblike plate, not the toothless beaks and weak jaw muscles. Also, we already know that G. bullatus was an ornithomimid with a toothless beak and weak jaw muscles, so (B) is irrelevant.
C
Except for the comblike plates in their beaks, G. bullatus shared few anatomical features with modern ducks and geese.
This weakens the paleontologists’ hypothesis by suggesting that G. bullatus and modern ducks and geese are not physically similar apart from their comblike plates.
D
Most G. bullatus fossils have been found in sediments deposited in lakes, rivers, and other wet environments.
This strengthens the argument by affirming one of the paleontologists’ key assumptions. If G. bullatus fed by filtering food from water and mud, they must have lived near water and mud, so their fossils would likely be found there too.
E
Paleontologists have not found evidence that any dinosaurs other than G. bullatus had comblike plates.
We already know that G. bullatus did have comblike plates, and the argument is concerned with whether they also fed by filtering food from water and mud. Whether any other dinosaurs had comblike plates is not relevant to the argument.
This is an RRE question.
The stimulus begins by telling us that when a healthy gazelle is frightened by hunters in a truck, they run away quickly and efficiently and hide themselves. So that is not surprising. The next sentence is where the surprising phenomenon starts. Notice the word “but” that introduces the phenomenon. It says that when a healthy gazelle detects an approaching lion, it does this thing called “stotting.” Stotting is where it leaps really high into the air as it's running away. Stotting has two consequences: one is that it uses a lot of energy that could have been used in running away, and the other is that it actually draws the lion’s attention. So therein lies the puzzle. Why do gazelles stot?
As is generally the case with RRE questions, how surprising the phenomenon is lies on a spectrum which turns on the kinds of assumptions we bring into the facts. In general, we tend not to know very much about the subject matter being discussed. Because of that, we tend to bring in pretty naïve assumptions. So in this instance, the naïve assumption that we might bring in would be that gazelles wouldn’t exhibit behavior such as stotting, which draws attention of the predator and which uses energy that could have been better spent on running away. But if you ask a subject matter expert, like a biologist who studies gazelles, she probably won't have the same set of assumptions that we do. She might already know what the explanation is for stotting.
Anyway, we don't have to be subject matter experts. We just have to understand the scientific logic that underpins this question. That’s the logic of phenomenon and hypothesis, the logic of causation.
Correct Answer Choice (C) says that to animals that typically prey on gazelles, which is to say, lions and cheetahs, stotting is a signal of strength and ability to escape. Okay, so this being an answer choice, we have to take it to be true. The question is whether the truth of this phenomenon explains the above phenomenon. The answer is yes. If stotting signals to a lion that this gazelle is strong and has the ability to escape, then the lion, presumably, is less likely to pursue that particular gazelle. I say presumably because it’s not explicitly stated. But that's a fairly reasonable assumption.
Answer Choice (A) says that animals that are startled sometimes act in ways that appear irrational to human observers. This answer choice at best restates the phenomenon instead of explaining the phenomenon. First we should acknowledge that there is nothing irrational about gazelles running away when they are frightened by hunters, so this answer isn't talking about that phenomenon. So the only phenomenon left is the phenomenon of stotting. And, indeed, the only reason why the question stem says there's an apparent paradox is because stotting appears to be irrational. It seems irrational that a gazelle would waste energy and draw the predator’s attention. That’s what we’re trying to explain. But you can’t “explain” it just by saying it seems irrational. You haven’t explained anything.
Answer Choice (B) says that young gazelles and gazelles that are not very healthy often stot when they become frightened by humans or by loud machines. This is a common type of wrong answer in RRE. This answer choice presents a phenomenon that is consistent with the phenomenon above and is similarly in need of an explanation. Having read this answer, I still don't understand why healthy gazelles stot when they detect a lion. In addition to that, I now have to wonder why young and unhealthy gazelles also stot when they are frightened by humans or loud machines.
Answer Choice (D) says a healthy gazelle can usually detect the approach of a predator before the predator becomes aware of the presence of the gazelle. In this competition between predator and prey, it's an enormous advantage to be more sensitive to the other’s presence. This answer reveals that it's the prey that's more sensitive. Okay, so that means the gazelle enjoys the first mover advantage. It can start running away before the lion even realizes that it's there. But this still doesn't explain why the gazelle stots as it runs away, especially when we were already told that stotting draws the lion's attention to the gazelle. Why not just run away without stotting?
Answer Choice (E) says that lions cannot run as quickly as gazelles, but they can still be effective by hunting in groups and coordinating. This answer choice reveals more information about how lions hunt. But it doesn't explain why gazelles stot. This answer is inviting us to make an unwarranted assumption that somehow stotting thwarts the lions' coordinated group hunting efforts. I have no reason to believe that's true. It seems, in fact, more likely that not stotting, which is to say, just straight up running away as fast as you can without showing off, would be the more effective strategy to escape a coordinated group attack.
A
Animals that are startled sometimes act in ways that appear irrational to human observers.
B
Young gazelles and gazelles that are not very healthy often stot when they become frightened by humans or by loud machines.
C
To animals that typically prey on gazelles, stotting is a signal of strength and ability to escape.
D
A healthy gazelle can usually detect the approach of a predator before the predator becomes aware of the presence of the gazelle.
E
While not able to run as quickly as gazelles, predators such as lions hunt effectively by hunting in groups and coordinating their attacks.
This is a Weaken question.
The stimulus is an advertisement that states Omnicide kills more species of insects than any other insecticide. From that premise, the advertisement concludes that Omnicide is the best insecticide for home gardeners, especially the ones who can't tell which insects are harming their plants.
But just because an insecticide kills the widest variety of insects doesn't mean that that's the best insecticide. A gardener who wants to protect her plants only wants to kill the harmful insects. This means the assumption in the advertisement's argument is that Omnicide kills only the harmful insects. Now, if that assumption is true, then the argument is pretty great. Omnicide is killing the widest variety of harmful insects. A gardener who doesn't know which insect is harming her plant should get Omnicide because it casts a wide net and increases the chances of killing the mystery pest.
But if that assumption were false, then this argument is severely weakened. Correct Answer Choice (B) cuts against that assumption. It says many insect species are beneficial to garden plants and Omnicide kills most of them. This weakens the argument to the point of directly damaging the conclusion. (B) is so powerful that it actually supports the opposite of the conclusion. This isn’t something that a correct answer in a Weaken question needs to do, but it is something that frequently occurs. Just be mindful that while some answers overshoot the standard, it doesn’t mean that they’re setting the standard.
Answer Choice (A) says some of Omnicide's competitors kill almost as many species of insects as Omnicide does. This doesn't weaken the argument. If anything, this only explicitly confirms that the competitors do not kill as many insects as Omnicide does.
Answer Choice (C) says merely protecting plants from attack by insect pests does not guarantee that the plants will be healthy. This is irrelevant. It could have been relevant if the conclusion were about the general health of plants. If that were the case, then of course damage from insects is only a partial consideration. We would also want to control for things like sunlight, nutrition, soil conditions, etc. But the conclusion is just about protecting plants from harmful insects.
Answer Choice (D) says Omnicide is more profitable for the manufacturer than most of their other insecticides. This is a classic bait trying to attack an argument by attacking the source. It doesn't work. The strength of the reasoning doesn’t turn on the profits. It might explain why the company is advertising Omnicide as opposed to another of their products, but that’s not our job here.
Answer Choice (E) says Omnicide does not kill weeds or mammalian pests like gophers or groundhogs. Similar to (C), this is not relevant because the conclusion is just about protecting plants from harmful insects. Again, this could have been relevant if the conclusion were about protecting plants from harm in general. If that had been the case, then other weeds or mammalian pests would be relevant considerations.
Advertisement: Omnicide kills more species of insects than any other insecticide. So Omnicide is the best insecticide for home gardeners, especially gardeners who cannot determine which insects are destroying their plants.
Summarize Argument
The ad concludes that Omnicide is the single best insecticide for home gardeners, both in general and especially for those who can’t tell which insects are destroying their plants. Why is Omnicide the best? Because it kills the widest range of insects.
Notable Assumptions
The ad assumes that the more species of insects you kill, the better your insecticide is for home gardeners.
A
Some of Omnicide’s competitors kill almost as many species of insects as Omnicide does.
“Almost as many” means “not quite as many.” This simply reinforces the ad’s premise: Omnicide kills the most species of insects.
B
Many insect species are beneficial to garden plants, and Omnicide kills most of these beneficial species.
This undermines the ad’s key assumption. Killing more species than other insecticides do could actually make Omnicide a worse option for home gardeners—especially for those who don’t know which species to attack—because using it indiscriminately will kill beneficial insects.
C
Merely protecting plants from attack by insect pests does not guarantee that the plants will be healthy.
The ad never suggests that using Omnicide will guarantee healthy plants—it just argues that Omnicide is the best option available.
D
Omnicide is more profitable for the manufacturer than most other insecticides made by the same company.
Irrelevant. How profitable Omnicide is for the manufacturer has no bearing on whether it’s the best insecticide for home gardeners.
E
Omnicide does not kill weeds or mammalian pests such as gophers, moles, and groundhogs.
The ad is purely focused on the best insecticide—that is, the best killer of insects. How it performs against plant or mammal pests is irrelevant. We also don’t know whether other insecticides perform any better against such pests.
This is a Weaken question.
The stimulus is an advertisement that states Omnicide kills more species of insects than any other insecticide. From that premise, the advertisement concludes that Omnicide is the best insecticide for home gardeners, especially the ones who can't tell which insects are harming their plants.
But just because an insecticide kills the widest variety of insects doesn't mean that that's the best insecticide. A gardener who wants to protect her plants only wants to kill the harmful insects. This means the assumption in the advertisement's argument is that Omnicide kills only the harmful insects. Now, if that assumption is true, then the argument is pretty great. Omnicide is killing the widest variety of harmful insects. A gardener who doesn't know which insect is harming her plant should get Omnicide because it casts a wide net and increases the chances of killing the mystery pest.
But if that assumption were false, then this argument is severely weakened. Correct Answer Choice (B) cuts against that assumption. It says many insect species are beneficial to garden plants and Omnicide kills most of them. This weakens the argument to the point of directly damaging the conclusion. (B) is so powerful that it actually supports the opposite of the conclusion. This isn’t something that a correct answer in a Weaken question needs to do, but it is something that frequently occurs. Just be mindful that while some answers overshoot the standard, it doesn’t mean that they’re setting the standard.
Answer Choice (A) says some of Omnicide's competitors kill almost as many species of insects as Omnicide does. This doesn't weaken the argument. If anything, this only explicitly confirms that the competitors do not kill as many insects as Omnicide does.
Answer Choice (C) says merely protecting plants from attack by insect pests does not guarantee that the plants will be healthy. This is irrelevant. It could have been relevant if the conclusion were about the general health of plants. If that were the case, then of course damage from insects is only a partial consideration. We would also want to control for things like sunlight, nutrition, soil conditions, etc. But the conclusion is just about protecting plants from harmful insects.
Answer Choice (D) says Omnicide is more profitable for the manufacturer than most of their other insecticides. This is a classic bait trying to attack an argument by attacking the source. It doesn't work. The strength of the reasoning doesn’t turn on the profits. It might explain why the company is advertising Omnicide as opposed to another of their products, but that’s not our job here.
Answer Choice (E) says Omnicide does not kill weeds or mammalian pests like gophers or groundhogs. Similar to (C), this is not relevant because the conclusion is just about protecting plants from harmful insects. Again, this could have been relevant if the conclusion were about protecting plants from harm in general. If that had been the case, then other weeds or mammalian pests would be relevant considerations.
This is a Weaken question.
This is a really difficult question. It's difficult in a way that's quite similar to how other questions are difficult. The test writers engineered a terrible argument that made a number of different kinds of questionable assumptions.
The argument proceeds from premises to conclusion and it also proceeds from a high-level phenomenon to a low-level phenomenon.
The first sentence tells us that productivity growth in industrialized nations has dropped substantially since computer technology became more widespread in the 60s and 70s. This is a correlational phenomenon at the level of nations. At the level of nations, we observe that the ones that have adopted computer technology have seen their productivity growth drop. Does that mean computer technology is what caused the decrease in productivity growth? We don't know. It could be or could be something else.
The next premise presents a phenomenon one level lower. We learned that in industries that rely most heavily on computer technology, productivity growth has dropped the most. I'll ask the same question here. Does this mean that computer technology caused the decrease in productivity growth? Again, we don't know. But the argument is edging towards precisely that causal hypothesis, that computer technology caused the decrease in productivity growth at the level of the industry and at the level of the country.
Now we get to the conclusion which is one level lower still. It says that a business that has increased its reliance on computer technology probably has not improved its productivity growth by doing so.
This conclusion rests upon that causal assumption: computer technology causes decrease in productivity growth (at the level of a business). And we've already talked about why that assumption is questionable. It's the classic correlation causation flaw. Just because two things are correlated doesn't necessarily mean that one of them caused the other. But even if you recognize this causal assumption, you might still be stuck between Answer Choice (A) and Answer Choice (D). This is why the question is difficult.
Answer Choice (A) says the industries that rely most heavily on computer technology have been burdened by inefficiencies that have substantially hindered their productivity growth. It sounds like (A) is providing an alternate hypothesis, an alternate cause to explain the slowdown in productivity growth for industries that rely most heavily on computer technologies. (A) says don't blame computer technologies. Rather, it’s these other things, these other inefficiencies that are truly responsible for the decrease in productivity growth. Doesn't this seem like it weakens the argument? It sure looks like it's cutting against the causal assumption that the argument needs.
Answer Choice (D) says within any given industry, the businesses whose productivity growth has been the greatest have been those that invested most heavily in computer technology. (D) also seems to be cutting against the causal assumption. After all, if it's true that computer technology causes a decrease in productivity growth for businesses, then we certainly would not expect to find what (D) is telling us to be true. In fact, we would expect to find the opposite. (D) exhibits a pattern in causal arguments: confirming the predictions of a causal hypothesis counts as evidence in favor and disconfirming those predictions counts as strong evidence against.
So how do we decide between (A), which seems to be providing an alternate hypothesis, and (D), which seems to be providing facts inconsistent with the causal assumption’s predictions?
That requires our recognition that there is something other than causal logic taking place in this argument. Notice the shift from high-level phenomena to low-level phenomena. We start at nations, then we talk about industries, and finally the conclusion talks about particular businesses. Where the premise talked about industries that rely most heavily on computer technologies, the conclusion picks out a business that may or may not even be part of that industry. There’s been a set change. We can use concrete examples to make this more tangible. Finance is an industry that relies heavily on computer technologies, so we can take the premise to mean that finance has experienced productivity growth slowdowns. The conclusion, on the other hand, is only about a business that has increased its reliance on computer technology. That could mean an investment bank, or it could mean a space company. This is a crucial gap between the premise about what's happening in industries versus the conclusion about what we expect happened in particular businesses. Because of this change in sets, it's not even clear that the causal forces at play for the industries (whatever they may be) are even relevant for the particular businesses the conclusion is talking about.
This is what makes Correct Answer Choice (D) much more relevant to the argument than (A). Even if it's true that at the level of the finance industry, the real explanation for the productivity growth slowdown has nothing to do with computer technology but rather has to do with these other inefficiencies that (A) talks about, the conclusion is still about businesses that may or may not even be in the finance industry. Offering alternative causal explanations at the level of industries may not even matter at the level of particular businesses if those businesses aren’t members of the industry.
This is not so for (D) because (D) is at the level of the businesses. The phenomenon (D) described is straight-up inconsistent with the assumption that a business’ investment in computer technology is bad for its productivity growth. If it’s true that within any industry, the businesses that most heavily invested in computer technologies also saw the greatest productivity growth, then something else explains the industry- and nation-level correlation.
Answer Choice (B) says productivity growth in many less industrialized nations has also dropped substantially since the 60s and 70s. Who cares? We already know that productivity growth in industrialized nations have dropped, and beyond that we know that the industries that rely most heavily on computer technologies have dropped, and so the argument goes on. The strength of the logic of the argument has nothing to do with what's happening in the less industrialized nations. Now, if you're thinking, “Well, productivity growth has also dropped in the less industrialized and therefore less computer-technology-dependent nations, doesn’t that mean there’s some other causal force at work? In other words, it is not computer technology that's responsible for the decrease in productivity growth for the industrialized nations since the less industrialized nations also experienced decreases.” If that’s the line of reasoning, then (B) is just a worse version of (A). For one thing, (A) offers an alternative cause, “inefficiencies.” (B) merely hints at the existence of some other explanation. More than that, (B) is at a level even further removed from that of businesses. (B) is talking about nations.
Answer Choice (C) says productivity growth in industries responsible for producing computer technology has increased substantially as computer technology became more widespread. (C) might be tempting because it's telling us that there are at least some industries that experienced increased productivity growth and there's a reason to assume that those industries rely on computer technology because they produce computer technology. But the problem here is that we have very good reasons to believe that these industries are outliers, that they are unrepresentative. We already know that for the last several decades, computer technologies have been increasingly adopted, so we would of course expect the industries that supplied those technologies to have experienced growth. But the fact still remains that the other industries, the ones that didn't manufacture the computer technologies but merely adopted them, those industries still experienced decreased productivity growth.
Answer Choice (E) says within the two years, recent technological advancements will almost certainly make investments in computer technology among the most effective ways for any business to improve productivity. This is a predictive statement about the future. It's not clear if what is stated here will come to pass. There is a high probability as signaled by “almost certainly,” but there is still a chance that this won't happen. But even if it does, what does that have to do with the past? The entire argument is situated in the past. It describes phenomena that have taken place in the past and it makes a conclusion guessing at what happened in the past. What will happen in the future cannot affect what has already happened in the past.
He also assumes that reliance on computers isn’t actually keeping productivity losses from being even worse. But it’s possible computers are helping the situation, and productivity growth in computer-heavy industries is dropping for unrelated reasons.
The right answer must suggest that increasing reliance on computers actually does help productivity growth for individual businesses.
A
The industries that rely most heavily on computer technology have been burdened by inefficiencies that have substantially hindered their productivity growth.
B
Productivity growth in many less industrialized nations has also dropped substantially since the 1960s and 1970s.
C
Productivity growth in industries responsible for producing computer technology has increased substantially as computer technology has become more widespread.
D
Within any given industry, the businesses whose productivity growth has been greatest have been those that have invested most heavily in computer technology.
E
Within the next few years, recent technological advances will almost certainly make investments in computer technology among the most effective ways for any business to improve productivity.
This is a Weaken question.
This is a really difficult question. It's difficult in a way that's quite similar to how other questions are difficult. The test writers engineered a terrible argument that made a number of different kinds of questionable assumptions.
The argument proceeds from premises to conclusion and it also proceeds from a high-level phenomenon to a low-level phenomenon.
The first sentence tells us that productivity growth in industrialized nations has dropped substantially since computer technology became more widespread in the 60s and 70s. This is a correlational phenomenon at the level of nations. At the level of nations, we observe that the ones that have adopted computer technology have seen their productivity growth drop. Does that mean computer technology is what caused the decrease in productivity growth? We don't know. It could be or could be something else.
The next premise presents a phenomenon one level lower. We learned that in industries that rely most heavily on computer technology, productivity growth has dropped the most. I'll ask the same question here. Does this mean that computer technology caused the decrease in productivity growth? Again, we don't know. But the argument is edging towards precisely that causal hypothesis, that computer technology caused the decrease in productivity growth at the level of the industry and at the level of the country.
Now we get to the conclusion which is one level lower still. It says that a business that has increased its reliance on computer technology probably has not improved its productivity growth by doing so.
This conclusion rests upon that causal assumption: computer technology causes decrease in productivity growth (at the level of a business). And we've already talked about why that assumption is questionable. It's the classic correlation causation flaw. Just because two things are correlated doesn't necessarily mean that one of them caused the other. But even if you recognize this causal assumption, you might still be stuck between Answer Choice (A) and Answer Choice (D). This is why the question is difficult.
Answer Choice (A) says the industries that rely most heavily on computer technology have been burdened by inefficiencies that have substantially hindered their productivity growth. It sounds like (A) is providing an alternate hypothesis, an alternate cause to explain the slowdown in productivity growth for industries that rely most heavily on computer technologies. (A) says don't blame computer technologies. Rather, it’s these other things, these other inefficiencies that are truly responsible for the decrease in productivity growth. Doesn't this seem like it weakens the argument? It sure looks like it's cutting against the causal assumption that the argument needs.
Answer Choice (D) says within any given industry, the businesses whose productivity growth has been the greatest have been those that invested most heavily in computer technology. (D) also seems to be cutting against the causal assumption. After all, if it's true that computer technology causes a decrease in productivity growth for businesses, then we certainly would not expect to find what (D) is telling us to be true. In fact, we would expect to find the opposite. (D) exhibits a pattern in causal arguments: confirming the predictions of a causal hypothesis counts as evidence in favor and disconfirming those predictions counts as strong evidence against.
So how do we decide between (A), which seems to be providing an alternate hypothesis, and (D), which seems to be providing facts inconsistent with the causal assumption’s predictions?
That requires our recognition that there is something other than causal logic taking place in this argument. Notice the shift from high-level phenomena to low-level phenomena. We start at nations, then we talk about industries, and finally the conclusion talks about particular businesses. Where the premise talked about industries that rely most heavily on computer technologies, the conclusion picks out a business that may or may not even be part of that industry. There’s been a set change. We can use concrete examples to make this more tangible. Finance is an industry that relies heavily on computer technologies, so we can take the premise to mean that finance has experienced productivity growth slowdowns. The conclusion, on the other hand, is only about a business that has increased its reliance on computer technology. That could mean an investment bank, or it could mean a space company. This is a crucial gap between the premise about what's happening in industries versus the conclusion about what we expect happened in particular businesses. Because of this change in sets, it's not even clear that the causal forces at play for the industries (whatever they may be) are even relevant for the particular businesses the conclusion is talking about.
This is what makes Correct Answer Choice (D) much more relevant to the argument than (A). Even if it's true that at the level of the finance industry, the real explanation for the productivity growth slowdown has nothing to do with computer technology but rather has to do with these other inefficiencies that (A) talks about, the conclusion is still about businesses that may or may not even be in the finance industry. Offering alternative causal explanations at the level of industries may not even matter at the level of particular businesses if those businesses aren’t members of the industry.
This is not so for (D) because (D) is at the level of the businesses. The phenomenon (D) described is straight-up inconsistent with the assumption that a business’ investment in computer technology is bad for its productivity growth. If it’s true that within any industry, the businesses that most heavily invested in computer technologies also saw the greatest productivity growth, then something else explains the industry- and nation-level correlation.
Answer Choice (B) says productivity growth in many less industrialized nations has also dropped substantially since the 60s and 70s. Who cares? We already know that productivity growth in industrialized nations have dropped, and beyond that we know that the industries that rely most heavily on computer technologies have dropped, and so the argument goes on. The strength of the logic of the argument has nothing to do with what's happening in the less industrialized nations. Now, if you're thinking, “Well, productivity growth has also dropped in the less industrialized and therefore less computer-technology-dependent nations, doesn’t that mean there’s some other causal force at work? In other words, it is not computer technology that's responsible for the decrease in productivity growth for the industrialized nations since the less industrialized nations also experienced decreases.” If that’s the line of reasoning, then (B) is just a worse version of (A). For one thing, (A) offers an alternative cause, “inefficiencies.” (B) merely hints at the existence of some other explanation. More than that, (B) is at a level even further removed from that of businesses. (B) is talking about nations.
Answer Choice (C) says productivity growth in industries responsible for producing computer technology has increased substantially as computer technology became more widespread. (C) might be tempting because it's telling us that there are at least some industries that experienced increased productivity growth and there's a reason to assume that those industries rely on computer technology because they produce computer technology. But the problem here is that we have very good reasons to believe that these industries are outliers, that they are unrepresentative. We already know that for the last several decades, computer technologies have been increasingly adopted, so we would of course expect the industries that supplied those technologies to have experienced growth. But the fact still remains that the other industries, the ones that didn't manufacture the computer technologies but merely adopted them, those industries still experienced decreased productivity growth.
Answer Choice (E) says within the two years, recent technological advancements will almost certainly make investments in computer technology among the most effective ways for any business to improve productivity. This is a predictive statement about the future. It's not clear if what is stated here will come to pass. There is a high probability as signaled by “almost certainly,” but there is still a chance that this won't happen. But even if it does, what does that have to do with the past? The entire argument is situated in the past. It describes phenomena that have taken place in the past and it makes a conclusion guessing at what happened in the past. What will happen in the future cannot affect what has already happened in the past.