Ranu is an ordinary sportsperson. In the last two university sprint events, her performances in the heats were pathetic.
Which of the following, if true, weakens the above argument the most?
Answer: B
The question presented asks which of the options would weaken the argument most. The argument presented is, “Ranu is an ordinary sports-person”. The reasoning behind this is that she has performed badly in two university sprint events. The option that negates this reasoning would be an ideal choice.
Option 1 supports the argument and can be eliminated.
Option 2 nullifies the argument in a straightforward manner, as it states that Ranu is a “national shot-put champion” and it can be inferred from this that she cannot be expected to perform extraordinarily well in sprint events.
Option 3 negates the premise presented in the statement, but does not necessarily weaken the argument.
Options 4 and 5 have a certain amount of ambiguity, as it might be possible that Ranu's college did not have good sprinters. They do not directly deal with the argument in the passage, which talk about university sprint events.
Hence, the correct answer is option 2.