Official Explanation

(C) This question asks you to weaken the author’s conclusion. The author’s underlying assumption is that athletes have an unfair advantage; his conclusion is that this practice should be stopped. Any statement that shows the assumption to be false, or at least not necessarily true, or that the conclusion does not follow logically, will necessarily weaken the conclusion. Of course, the logical bridge between the assumption and the conclusion is that it is inappropriate — “unfair” — to prefer athletes over non-athletes simply because of their athletic talent. We have to accept that viewpoint (whether we personally agree with it or not) or the question cannot be answered.

Choice (A) is irrelevant; the number of varsity athletes at the school doesn’t impact the argument in any way.

Choice (B) is a bit misleading: though it might suggest that Siemans University will be unable to stop the practice, it does not weaken the conclusion that Siemans University should stop the practice.

It may be very understandable that Siemans University would want to attract better athletes to bolster its sports results (choice (D)), but that doesn’t prevent the wholesale offering of scholarships to athletes from constituting an unfair advantage over the student body as a whole.

Proof that athletes are less academically competent than non-athletes (choice (E)) doesn’t weaken the conclusion if it is the case that the athletes receive, proportionately, more scholarships than non-athletes.

Choice (C) does the most to undermine the assumption by suggesting that Siemans University, in its allocation of scholarships, may prefer students who excel in music and journalism MORE than athletes (because 90 percent get scholarships versus 30 percent for athletes). So the alleged preferences for athletes are secondary to the preferences for other areas.

Answer: C