Q5 - A store was vandalized repeatedly over a

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Weaken EXCEPT

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Bright lighting was installed around the outside of the store.
Evidence: 3 months ago, I was talking with the owner of this store, who said that vandalization was a problem and that bright lighting around the outside was known to reduce vandalism. And the owner just told me that there hadn't been any vandalism since that conversation 3 months ago.

Answer Anticipation:
This is a classic Explanation/Interpretation template:
PREMISE - a curious fact, a statistical change, a correlation
CONCLUSION - someone's explanation for / interpretation of that background fact.

Here, the friend is trying to explain/interpret the fact that there used to be vandalism but now there's not. Her interpretation is that the owner must have implemented the "bright perimeter lights" solution he was considering 3 months ago. Whenever we evaluate this template, we ask two different, though related, questions:
1. Is there some OTHER WAY to explain the background fact
(i.e. what ELSE could have caused vandalism to disappear over the last three months?)
2. How plausible is the AUTHOR'S INTERPRETATION
(i.e. is it realistic that the owner installed bright lighting on the outside in the last 3 months)

Correct Answer:
C

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) #1 - other way to explain no vandalism (more police)

(B) #2 - plausibility of author's story (couldn't have gotten bright lights installed in last 3 months)

(C) YES - this strengthens with a #2 plausibility answer (covariation: where the cause [lights] is present, the effect [no vandalism] is present … where the cause is absent [perimeter lights wouldn't affect stuff a block away], the effect is absent [still have vandalism].)

(D) #2 - plausibility of author's story (couldn't afford bright perimeter lights)

(E) #1 - other way to explain no vandalism (watchdog)

Takeaway/Pattern: When you Weaken arguments based on explanations/interpretations, you usually see #1 answers (OTHER WAYS to explain the background fact).

When you Strengthen explanations/interpretations, you usually see #2 answers, especially the "Control Group" (covariation) answer, which shows "when the cause was absent, the effect was absent".

#officialexplanation