Most scientists now believe that the near extinction of the cobra in the North Indian forests was due to the extensive hunting down of the poor creature by the tribals of the forest. During the 40s and the 50s cobra was in great demand for its medicinal use which the tribals exploited greatly, the scientists say.Which of the following, weakens the above argument? Options: A . &nbspDuring the 40s and the 50s claws, antlers, horns, tusks and other animal parts were in great demand for their medicinal uses which prompted most tribals to kill animals. B . &nbspDuring 40s and the 50s, the government built a dam in the vicinity of North Indian forest. C . &nbspThe extensive government sponsored logging operations of the 40s and the 50s in the North Indian forests led to the immediate extinction of rodents, a major prey of snakes. D . &nbspThe government undertook a forestation to receive the forests to prevent extinction of snakes in the North India but failed miserably. E . &nbspNone of these

Answer: Option C The correct answer is c. To weaken an argument, we should show the assumption in the argument to be false. The assumption in the given argument is that there is no other cause for the near extinction of the cobra. If we prove this wrong, it weakens the argument. Choice (c), by showing an alternative cause, does this. Others are either irrelevant or out of scope.