📢 Too many exams? Don’t know which one suits you best? Book Your Free Expert 👉 call Now!
  • google app store apple app store
    • ✖

      Question

      Read the passage below and determine which of the given

      options most seriously WEAKENS the specific argument that longer training periods will enhance performance and operational readiness. Argument: To elevate national emergency response capabilities, a state defense ministry is considering expanding the mandatory daily operational training shift for new recruits from 8 hours to 12 hours. Proponents claim that this policy change will accelerate skill acquisition and enhance the overall readiness of emergency units facing sudden structural shortages. Opponents, however, argue that the extended shifts will severely compromise physical well-being, increase burn-out rates, and ultimately lower operational execution. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument that longer training hours will enhance operational readiness?
      A Tactical data shows that a recruit's situational awareness and motor skill retention drop dramatically after 7 consecutive hours of rigorous physical drill. Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
      B Veteran training instructors have threatened to retire early if the mandatory extension is officially codified into the training manual. Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
      C Specialized tactical divisions within the aviation wing already utilize high-tech flight simulators to augment their field exercises. Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
      D The defense ministry has promised to allocate premium stipends and upgraded nutrition plans for all recruits undergoing the extended training cycles. Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
      E The state currently possesses one of the lowest youth recruitment retention percentages across neighboring jurisdictions. Correct Answer Incorrect Answer

      Solution

      Why A is correct: The core argument of the defense ministry is that adding more hours to the shift will accelerate skill acquisition and enhance operational readiness. If empirical data proves that human performance, memory retention, and situational awareness drop sharply after just 7 hours (as stated in A), then stretching the shift all the way to 12 hours will yield exhausted recruits who are unable to absorb training. This directly proves that the extra hours will actively degrade, rather than enhance, total readiness, rendering the policy completely counterproductive. Why B is incorrect: This discusses a negative institutional consequence (instructors retiring) and friction from staff, which highlights a logistical obstacle but does not directly invalidate the baseline theory that more hours would train a recruit better. Why C is incorrect: This is an external, unrelated fact about alternative training methods (simulators) used in a specific branch. It does not address the performance impact of extending hours for general field training. Why D is incorrect: This acts as an incentive or a mitigating measure (stipends and nutrition) meant to offset the strain of the policy. If anything, it could arguably bolster the program's feasibility, failing to weaken the main claim. Why E is incorrect: This introduces a broader demographic issue regarding recruitment retention. While relevant to general military planning, it does not challenge the core relationship between training hours and immediate skill acquisition.

      Practice Next
      More Strong and Weak Argument Questions

      Relevant for Exams:

      ask-question