Question

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.

Answer 1

C). It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.

Step-by-step explanation:

As per the question, option C i.e. 'It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes' displays the criticism that makes the argument vulnerable. It questions the argument's assumption that 'technological improvements increase labor productivity' and takes it as a necessary condition to enhance the productivity of labor. However, it is one of the sufficient causes but not necessary as several other factors like economic conditions, labor conditions, etc. also influence labor productivity. Thus, this makes the argument feeble and hence, option C is the correct answer.