In these “Weaken the Plan” questions, your job is to find a reason that the plan will not work. And "The train line taken by most Plymouth Soccer Club spectators to the stadium arrives every four hours starting at 11:30am." supplies one – if most people cannot arrive before 11:30am, they won’t be able to respond to the new promotion of events before a noon game. Choice "The neighboring Canton Soccer Club has found that the best way to incent spectators to arrive early is to discount all concessions up to an hour before kickoff."is incorrect in that the potential existence of a better plan doesn’t necessarily mean that this plan will not work. Similarly choice "The children’s exhibitions will likely tear up the turf before the premier match begins, resulting in a lower-quality playing surface for the main event." is out of scope – the field quality is irrelevant as to whether the plan will reach its objective of reducing congestion near game time. Choices "Some fans of the Plymouth Soccer Club must travel for several hours to attend matches at the stadium." and "Because of its original design, the stadium used by Plymouth Soccer Club has fewer entryways than any other stadium in the surrounding area.", similarly, do not hinder the plan’s chance of reaching its objective.

In this Plan/Strategy question, the goal is to reduce a nation's energy consumption, and the plan is to require tenants to be the payers of utility bills (as opposed to the owners of those properties). Remember: with Plan/Strategy questions, two concepts are crucial:

1) Pay close attention to the specific goal, which plays the same role as the conclusion in a classic Strengthen/Weaken question. Trap answers are often related to the general topic but do not affect the specific goal.

2) A better plan does not weaken the provided plan! Your job is only to assess whether this plan will achieve this objective, not whether it's the best plan, the most efficient plan, etc.

Note that each of "Most of the country's energy consumption comes from commercial real estate, not residential real estate." and "Other nations have had success reducing energy consumption by offering rental subsidies for tenants whose energy usage falls below certain thresholds." suggests a "better plan" - "Most of the country's energy consumption comes from commercial real estate, not residential real estate." suggests that this plan wouldn't be as effective as one that tackled energy usage in commercial real estate and E suggests that rental subsidies could be a better program. But neither directly weakens this plan: as long as less energy is used under this plan, the plan has achieved its goal of reducing energy usage. So "Most of the country's energy consumption comes from commercial real estate, not residential real estate." and "Other nations have had success reducing energy consumption by offering rental subsidies for tenants whose energy usage falls below certain thresholds." may be tempting, but they are incorrect.

Choice "When owners of rental properties are responsible for utility bills, they are more likely to ensure that a property's appliances and furnaces are the most energy-efficient versions." is correct: if giving the tenants an incentive to use less energy also remove the incentive for the landowners to pursue energy-saving policies, that suggests that this plan may not work at all: it may not result in any energy reduction.

Choices "Most rental properties are rented by younger people, and people tend to be more conscious about environmental issues like energy consumption when they are younger." and "Energy bills are calculated not only by the amount of energy used, but also by the times of day during which energy is used." are too far from the scope of the current plan and its goal, and are also incorrect. "When owners of rental properties are responsible for utility bills, they are more likely to ensure that a property's appliances and furnaces are the most energy-efficient versions." is the correct choice.

In any Plan/Strategy question, it is important to determine exactly what the goal of the plan is. Here the goal is to "substantially reduce marijuana use," which you should see is different from related goals (perhaps to reduce marijuana sales or to eliminate marijuana use). Precision in wording and understanding the exact goal are keys to these questions.

You can anticipate reasons that raising the sales tax and therefore the cost of marijuana might not result in a significant decrease in marijuana use. Focusing on use - and not sales - provides a great entry point: what if people find a way to get marijuana without having to buy it? Choice "The state law that legalized marijuana also allows residents to grow a small amount of marijuana for personal use.​" suggests that they might be able to simply grow it on their own and avoid both the price and the tax.

What if they can buy it somewhere else and avoid the tax? That leads to answer choices:

"Despite the legalization of marijuana, there remains a non-trivial black market for the illegal sale of marijuana in Kerry County.": If people can buy it on the black market and avoid paying the sales tax, then they can still use it without being affected by the tax.

"Kerry County is among the smallest counties in the state, with no location that is more than a 20-minute drive from a neighboring county.": If people can buy it nearby in a county that doesn't have the tax, then they'll avoid the tax.

What if the tax just isn't that big of a deterrent? Choice "Marijuana use has been most popular among young professionals, a demographic that tends to have a large amount of disposable income." suggests that the largest group of users may must not care about paying more to use marijuana.

That leaves choice "Kerry County already levies similar "sin tax" sales taxes on other recreational drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.", which you should see does not directly address marijuana at all. Even if similar taxes for similar goods are already on the books, that still means that the net cost of marijuana will markedly increase under the sales tax. If that is, indeed, a deterrent then the taxes on similar goods won't matter. "Kerry County already levies similar "sin tax" sales taxes on other recreational drugs such as alcohol and tobacco." does not attack the problem head on, and is therefore the only answer choice that does not give reason to believe that the plan will not work.

The strategy outlined in this Weaken problem makes a classic error of correlation vs. causation, assuming that "bringing lunch to work" is a cause of "takes fewer sick days." In actuality, it could be that bringing lunch is an effect of a totally different cause, as choice "Employees who bring their lunch from home tend to lead generally healthier lifestyles than do employees who purchase lunch." correctly points out. With choice "Employees who bring their lunch from home tend to lead generally healthier lifestyles than do employees who purchase lunch.", the cause of both "brings lunch to work" and "takes fewer sick days" is that generally-healthier people do both - they bring their lunch to work and they take fewer sick days. Forcing someone else - someone less healthy - to bring his or her lunch wouldn't change the other unhealthy habits that lead to extra sick days, so the plan would not work.

While choice "Boltech's cafeteria is known for serving a diverse array of healthy lunch options." seems like it should weaken the plan (taking away the healthy options at the cafeteria), keep in mind that we already have the evidence that those who bring their lunch take fewer sick days than those who eat at the cafeteria, so those healthy cafeteria options have already been called into question as a driver of fewer sick days.

Choice "Because of Boltech's location, employees who choose to visit a nearby restaurant for lunch will seldom be able to return within an hour." could very well be correct if the goal were to minimize "time away from one's desk" or something similar, but the goal is specifically called out as "fewer sick days." Being away for a longer period for lunch may well be a problem worth considering, but in the context of this particular goal it is irrelevant.

Choice "Employees have expressed concern about the cost of dining at nearby restaurants compared with the affordability of the Boltech cafeteria." is similar: it shows a reason why the plan might not be a great plan overall (it could hurt employee morale) but the goal is specifically drawn at "fewer sick days" so that morale is irrelevant to the specific aims in the problem. For similar reasons, choice "Many Boltech employees chose to work for the company in large part because of its generous benefits, such as an on-site cafeteria and fitness center." is also incorrect - while morale may be hurt and people might feel misled (or future recruitment efforts may fall short), the only objective specifically addressed in the problem is "reduce the number of sick days" so choice "Many Boltech employees chose to work for the company in large part because of its generous benefits, such as an on-site cafeteria and fitness center." is not relevant.

In this Weaken the Plan question, the goal is to solve problems of high unemployment and a lack of qualified candidates for certain jobs. The plan, then, is to offer a free training program to unemployed citizens to prepare them for those jobs. But if "Successful graduates of technical training programs nearly always have scientific job experience prior to enrolling in such programs." were true - if the program required related job experience beforehand to be successful - then that plan is not likely to work on its own. Note that choices "Many universities and technical colleges offer nine- and twelve-month programs to train students in the same fields." and "The proposed program is significantly more expensive than several alternatives proposed by members of the legislative body." both commit the "cardinal sin" of Weaken the Plan questions - they propose better plans, but don't weaken this plan. Choice "Laboratory and medical technician jobs are not the only jobs for which companies are struggling to find qualified employees." is also incorrect; the goal isn't to "eliminate unemployment" but rather just to lessen it, and so "Laboratory and medical technician jobs are not the only jobs for which companies are struggling to find qualified employees." does not weaken the plan. And choice "Similar programs in neighboring countries have had mixed results." neither strengthens nor weaken the plan - it shows that there is a possibility that the plan could work and that it could not based on prior evidence, and doesn't give any reason to believe that this plan will fall in the "not" column.

This is a Weaken question, due to the phrase, “which of the following…indicates the plan…is ill-suited.” However, unlike other Weaken questions that focus on arguments containing premises and conclusions, this problem focuses on the steps and goals of a particular plan. Thus, instead of zeroing in on a conclusion (as we normally would if attempting to weaken a traditional argument), we pay special attention to the goal of the plan. The correct answer will show that the proposed solution would not meet the predefined goals. The primary goal of the environmental groups is found in the very first sentence of the question: they want to “protect the environment”. To reach this goal, their plan is to keep a decommissioned oil platform from sinking. Naturally, any answer choice that shows the plan does not “protect the environment” could potentially weaken the efficacy of the solution.

Answer choice “The National Environmental Research Council approved the sinking of the oil platform, calling it the “best practicable environmental option.”” uses a fairly common trick of the Testmaker: luring test takers into accepting an “expert opinion” when the evaluatory criteria used by the expert are not explicitly stated. While the expert (in this case, the National Environmental Research Council) may give an official statement, this does not mean that the expert has the same goals or motives as the environmental groups have. “The best practicable environmental option” may or may not protect the environment. Answer choice “The National Environmental Research Council approved the sinking of the oil platform, calling it the “best practicable environmental option.”” does not necessarily weaken the plan.

Answer choice “Dismantling the oil platform on land would cost over 70 million dollars, compared to the $7.5 million needed to secure and sink it in a deep ocean location.” is a misdirection answer. Here the Testmaker introduces different criteria than those used by the environmental groups (in this case, the cost of different options.) As compelling as saving millions of dollars may be, the goal of the environmental groups is to “protect the environment” not “save money”. Our goal is to undermine the efficacy of the proposed plan in meeting the proposed goal; whether the plan saves money is irrelevant.

Answer choice “The release of 53 tons of toxic material into the ocean is very little compared to the volume of very highly toxic materials released by deep sea volcanoes.” is also a misdirection answer. It tries to get novice test takers to focus on other sources of toxic materials irrelevant to the goals of the proposed plan: environmentalists could still protect the environment from the toxic materials released by sinking the oil platform, regardless of the amount of chemicals released by natural phenomena.

(Now, if they could somehow plug an undersea volcano by sinking the oil platform, that would be another story entirely; however, such a possibility is not mentioned here!)

Answer choice “Towing the oil platform into shallow waters poses a massive risk that it may break up on its way to land, releasing the contained pollutants into fragile coastal waters.” shows us how the potential effects of the environmentalists’ plan could actually pose a greater risk to the environment, thus undermining the environmentalists’ goal of “protecting the environment”. Answer choice “Towing the oil platform into shallow waters poses a massive risk that it may break up on its way to land, releasing the contained pollutants into fragile coastal waters.” weakens the plan.

Answer choice “The sinking of the platform is fully in line with internationally approved guidelines for the disposal of off shore installations at sea.” is another variation on the “expert opinion” trap used by the Testmaker. Even if the disposal process were “internationally approved” (implying the “okay” of some governing body), this could still come in conflict with the environmentalists’ goals.

This is a Weaken question, as evidenced by the phrase, “which of the following…argues most strongly against.” This particular problem highlights one of the sub-types of Weaken questions: notice that we are not necessarily looking at a logical argument, but instead at a proposed solution or plan. Whenever we encounter these kinds of Weaken questions, we need to mind the gap between the proposed goal of the plan and the methods used to obtain that goal. The disconnect often lies between those two components. In the case of this particular problem, the staff at a local daycare believes that parents would be incentivized to pick up their children if late fines were assessed. The question naturally arises: would late fines actually change the behavior of the perpetually late parents? Any answer choice that undermines this would weaken the plan.

Answer choice “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.” does exactly that. This suggests that fines might actually exacerbate the behavior of parents to pick up their children late. This runs completely counter to the goals of the daycare staff, who hoped fines would reduce the propensity for parental lateness. “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.” weakens the plan, and, therefore, is the correct answer.

Answer choice “There might be irreconcilable disagreements among the daycare staff about whether the late fines should be imposed.” is a distraction from the real issue. The entire question centers on the effectiveness of the plan to reduce parental lateness. Disagreements about whether the plan should be enacted are independent of any questions of effectiveness. The Testmaker is hoping that novice test takers “read between the lines” on this answer, imagining that such disagreements would lead to resistance and ineffectiveness.

This is a dangerous trap. No such connection is explicitly made here. Reading between the lines generally gets the novice test taker into trouble.

Answer choice “Late fines might cause some parents to enroll their children in other daycares.” is another distraction designed by the Testmaker to introduce additional (and irrelevant) criteria. The question stem asks us to consider situations that would reduce the “effectiveness” of the plan of using fines to incentivize parents to pick their children up on time. Answer choice “Late fines might cause some parents to enroll their children in other daycares.” gives us other side-effects (loss of enrollment), but this is outside the scope of the question.

Answer choice “Removing the late fine policy might actually increase the number of tardy pick-ups.” is completely irrelevant and is outside the scope of the problem. Since the question asks us to evaluate situations that would reduce the “effectiveness” of the current plan of using fines to incentivize parents to pick their children up on time, any suggestion that focuses on what happens after the plan is no longer in effect is irrelevant. We are only asked to evaluate what happens when the plan is in effect.

The Testmaker included answer choice “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” as an alternative answer to confuse novice test takers. “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” does tell us that some parents would still pick up their children late, regardless of the fines. This does weaken the argument by showing that the fine policy would not effective across the board. However, notice the distinction between answer choice “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” and answer choice “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.”. Answer choice “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” is very limited, using phrases such as “some parents might.” On the other hand, answer choice “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.” is much more broad-ranging, making an overarching statement about parents in general who might “frequently” choose to be late. “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.” tells us that the policy could actually increase tardiness. Answer choice “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” implies that the policy simply has no effect on a subgroup of people. Because answer choice “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” is much softer than answer choice “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.”, we would eliminate “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” when comparing the two answers.

The strategy outlined in this Weaken problem makes a classic error of correlation vs. causation, assuming that "bringing lunch to work" is a cause of "takes fewer sick days." In actuality, it could be that bringing lunch is an effect of a totally different cause, as choice "Employees who bring their lunch from home tend to lead generally healthier lifestyles than do employees who purchase lunch." correctly points out. With choice "Employees who bring their lunch from home tend to lead generally healthier lifestyles than do employees who purchase lunch.", the cause of both "brings lunch to work" and "takes fewer sick days" is that generally-healthier people do both - they bring their lunch to work and they take fewer sick days. Forcing someone else - someone less healthy - to bring his or her lunch wouldn't change the other unhealthy habits that lead to extra sick days, so the plan would not work.

While choice "Boltech's cafeteria is known for serving a diverse array of healthy lunch options." seems like it should weaken the plan (taking away the healthy options at the cafeteria), keep in mind that we already have the evidence that those who bring their lunch take fewer sick days than those who eat at the cafeteria, so those healthy cafeteria options have already been called into question as a driver of fewer sick days.

Choice "Because of Boltech's location, employees who choose to visit a nearby restaurant for lunch will seldom be able to return within an hour." could very well be correct if the goal were to minimize "time away from one's desk" or something similar, but the goal is specifically called out as "fewer sick days." Being away for a longer period for lunch may well be a problem worth considering, but in the context of this particular goal it is irrelevant.

Choice "Employees have expressed concern about the cost of dining at nearby restaurants compared with the affordability of the Boltech cafeteria." is similar: it shows a reason why the plan might not be a great plan overall (it could hurt employee morale) but the goal is specifically drawn at "fewer sick days" so that morale is irrelevant to the specific aims in the problem. For similar reasons, choice "Many Boltech employees chose to work for the company in large part because of its generous benefits, such as an on-site cafeteria and fitness center." is also incorrect - while morale may be hurt and people might feel misled (or future recruitment efforts may fall short), the only objective specifically addressed in the problem is "reduce the number of sick days" so choice "Many Boltech employees chose to work for the company in large part because of its generous benefits, such as an on-site cafeteria and fitness center." is not relevant.