GRE General TestAnalytical WritingMedium
A university is considering implementing a mandatory 'civic engagement' course for all undergraduates, arguing that it will foster a stronger sense of community responsibility and improve students' critical thinking skills. Opponents claim that this initiative will merely add to students' already heavy workload without providing tangible benefits. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the opponents' claim?
- AMany students already volunteer in their communities, suggesting a pre-existing sense of civic responsibility.
- BData from other universities shows that students enrolled in similar mandatory courses demonstrate statistically significant improvements in standardized critical thinking assessments.
- CA survey of alumni reveals that those who participated in voluntary civic engagement activities during college report higher job satisfaction.
- DThe university's current curriculum committee has expressed concerns about the feasibility of integrating a new mandatory course.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: B. Data from other universities shows that students enrolled in similar mandatory courses demonstrate statistically significant improvements in standardized critical thinking assessments.
The opponents' claim rests on the idea that the course will not provide tangible benefits. If data shows that similar courses at other universities *do* provide tangible benefits (like improved critical thinking), it directly weakens their argument.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. This suggests some students already have civic responsibility, but doesn't address whether the mandatory course would provide additional, tangible benefits for all students, especially regarding critical thinking.
- C. This refers to voluntary activities and job satisfaction, not the specific benefits of a mandatory course or critical thinking skills.
- D. This addresses implementation challenges, not the tangible benefits or lack thereof, and doesn't weaken the opponents' core claim.
Weakening an Opponent's Claim
To weaken an opponent's claim means to present information or reasoning that reduces the perceived validity, strength, or relevance of their argument.
- Targets the core premise or conclusion of the opponent's claim.
- Can involve showing the claim is based on faulty assumptions, insufficient evidence, or flawed logic.
- Does not necessarily prove the opposite, but makes the opponent's claim less convincing.
Memory trick: Wobbly planks make a weak claim.