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 significantly 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.
Doubt- why are options D and E wrong
Options D and E are complex to comprehend.
The argument says that technology improves labor productivity
and then compares Parland's and Vergia's labor productivity
and concludes that- Parland's industries must be more technically advanced than those of Vergia.
We need to identify the flaw in the argument.
Option C- (C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.
Technology could be one factor that would have caused an increase in labour productivity. But the argument considers only that and not any other factor for the increase in labour productivity in Parland.
Ex- Things get wet when it rains. the grass is wet. Hence it rained. There could be other possible causes too but the argument does not consider that. Option C identifies that flaw.
(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
condition- In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries.
The argument takes this condition to be the effect of something (technology) that happened only after the condition already existed.
The argument does not state that one thing happened before the other. It is not the flaw that the given argument makes.
(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.
What distinction does the argument make? None.
presuppose means to assume/ take to be true beforehand.
E cannot be the answer.