Question

In 2002, according to a news poll, 36% of voters leaned toward party “Y”. In 2004, this figure rose to 46%. But in another survey the percentage was down to 40%. Therefore, party “Z” is likely to win the next election. Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the above conclusion?

• A. People tend to switch their votes at the last minute.
• B. It has been shown that 85% of the voters belonging to party “Y” vote in an election, compared to 80% of the voters belonging to party “Z”.
• C. 35% of people favour party “Z”.
• D. No one can predict how people will vote.

Hint:

The strongest weakener directly compares Z's own support to Y's remaining support, not a vague point about unpredictability.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

The argument's logic is: support for party Y has slipped from 46% down to 40%, so the rival, party Z, is likely to win. This only works if Z's own support is actually ahead of Y's remaining 40%.

1. People switch votes at the last minute: This adds uncertainty to both parties equally and does not specifically undercut the claim that Z is ahead, so it does not seriously weaken the argument.
2. 85% of Y voters vote vs 80% of Z voters: This suggests Y's supporters turn out more reliably, which could actually help Y, but it does not directly compare the two parties' overall support levels, so it is a weaker challenge than a direct figure.
3. 35% of people favour party Z: If Z only has 35% support while Y still has 40%, Y is still ahead of Z, directly contradicting the conclusion that Z is likely to win. This is a direct and serious blow to the argument.
4. No one can predict how people will vote: This is too vague and general to specifically undercut the numeric comparison being made.

Only the option with a concrete, lower number for Z's own support directly weakens the conclusion.

So the correct answer is option C.