In a Weaken question, which of the following would serve to hurt the argument?

In a Weaken question, the goal is to identify information that undermines or challenges the argument presented. The argument is typically based on certain premises and concludes with a specific assertion. When evaluating the options, the choice that serves to hurt the argument is one that directly contradicts or casts doubt on its validity.

Contradictory evidence is most effective in this context because it introduces facts or data that oppose the conclusion drawn in the argument. If the argument is based on a certain premise, presenting evidence that directly contradicts that premise serves to weaken the reasoning and make the conclusion less tenable. This type of information effectively diminishes the strength of the argument by showing that the premises are not universally applicable or true.

In contrast, new supporting data would likely bolster the argument rather than weaken it. Historical context may provide useful background but does not inherently challenge the argument’s validity. Clarified assumptions can improve understanding of the argument but do not necessarily undermine it; they might even strengthen it by clarifying misunderstanding. Thus, contradictory evidence is the best option for weakening the argument, as it directly opposes the conclusions reached.