Ranu is an ordinary sportsperson. In the last two university sprint events, her performances in the heats were pathetic. Which of the following, if true, weakens the above argument the most?
Show Hint
In critical reasoning, always look for evidence that directly contradicts the main claim. National-level achievement strongly disproves the idea of being “ordinary.”
She had participated in the college swimming competition and finished last.
She is a national shot-put champion.
The last two times, Ranu had to compete with national level runners. Had she been in other heats, she would have reached quarterfinals.
Ranu was the only player who represented her college in the sprint events.
In the college sprint events, Ranu always won.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option isB
Solution and Explanation
The argument claims that Ranu is an {ordinary sportsperson}, based on her poor sprint performances. To weaken this, we must show that she is in fact an accomplished athlete in another domain. Option A: Performing poorly in swimming does not weaken the claim — it may support the idea of being "ordinary." Option B: Being a {national shot-put champion} strongly contradicts the claim of being "ordinary," because national champions are elite sportspersons. This directly weakens the argument. Option C: Competing against national-level runners explains her losses but does not prove she is extraordinary — only gives context. Option D: Being the sole representative of her college says nothing about ability. Option E: Winning college sprints weakens the argument slightly, but college-level wins are not as strong a counter as a national-level championship.
Thus, the strongest weakening fact is that Ranu is a national shot-put champion.
\fbox{\parbox{0.97\linewidth}{
\centering The statement that weakens the argument the most is $\boxed{\text{She is a national shot-put champion}}$.
}}
