Q16 - Some health officials are

[griffin.811]

I was able to easily eliminate all the other incorrect answers, but not B.

It may have something to do with my understanding of the core here.

More alcohol deaths because docs more likely to identify deaths as alcohol related now then in the past. and this is because over time attitudes over time have changed from being viewed as a moral failure, to a disease.

Does B weaken the the conclusion by saying that a moral failure could have been a disease as well? or should the last sentence of the core I constructed above not be included?

Thanks

[tommywallach]

Hey Guys,

Let's look at this question top to bottom. It's a strengthen question, which means we should start by looking at the core:

Conclusion: The reason for the increase in alcohol-related deaths is that more are identified, not that there are more

Premise: Reported alcohol deaths are way up; alcoholism now seen as disease, not moral failing

So we need to strengthen the assumption that this change in attitude might actually affect how incidences are identified.

(A) This would weaken the conclusion, because there might just be more alcohol-related deaths, as opposed to more ID's.

(B) This is totally out of scope. Our argument is only about alcoholism, not other diseases.

(C) CORRECT. This tells us that physicians find it easier to recognize alcohol-related deaths, so that increased identification might be the reason we're seeing the number go up.

(D) This has nothing to do with an increase in reported deaths.

(E) This is fairly obvious (it doesn't add anything to the argument). The health officials don't need to be physicians to notice the increase in reported deaths from alcohol.

Hope that helps!

-t

[WaltGrace1983]

I am really having a hard time with this question. Can someone look over my thought process? I don't know if I agree with tommy's core (though that is a dangerous thing to say indeed ). Why wouldn't the core look like the following?:

Physicians are more likely to identify these deaths as alcohol-related
→
More deaths are being reported as alcohol-related

I don't really see why the sentiments towards alcohol (seeing it as a disease or a moral failing) really has any relevance. We are supposed to strengthen the argument right? Well how does (C) strengthen that bond between how people view the disease and how it gets reported?

To me it seems much more plausible that we say ((more likely to identify) → (more deaths reported)). However, when we do this, I don't really see how (C) strengthens that argument either. It still doesn't get at the bond between identification and reporting.

To me, I would feel that the answer would be something like "people are generally inclined to report what they believe they see" or something like that. What am I missing here?

[christine.defenbaugh]

Interesting thoughts WaltGrace1983!

So, your conclusion is that "More deaths are being reported as alcohol-related" - but the thing is, this is a fact that we know is happening. The very first sentence of the stimulus tells us that health officials are concerned about this phenomenon.

Let's say 20 years ago there were 5,000 reported alcohol deaths, and this year there are 10,000 reported alcohol deaths - regardless of why it is happening, the "deaths being reported as alcohol related" number is rising. What we don't know for a fact is the why: is it because there are actually more alcohol-deaths? (That seems to be what the health officials are afraid of.) Or is it just because the choices about which deaths get categorized as alcohol-related has changed? (The author's stance.)

So, what we have here is a very common argument structure of:

PREMISE: Phenomenon
CONCLUSION: Explanation for phenomenon

Be careful with the syntax of the final sentence! It is not "Because CAUSE occurs, it's likely that RESULT follows" but rather "RESULT happens, and the likely explanation is CAUSE". The easiest way to see that is to use the rest of the stimulus to ground you in what we know (facts, or premises).

Now that we know that conclusion is the explanation (that physicians are more likely to ID deaths as alcohol related), we want to pull in any premises that the author seems to be using as support - so that needs to include the change in attitudes. I can see the potential for change in attitude having some effect on reporting choices for deaths. Maybe doctors used to lie about cause of death to spare the family shame, or maybe the fact that it was viewed as a moral failing meant that no one would do studies on what alcoholism really did to the body.

But, as Tommy indicates above, the author is assuming that attitudes can (and likely did) have some impact on whether deaths get reported as alcohol-related or not.

Now, this is the point where it is critical to remember that a strengthener is not the same as a sufficient assumption - it doesn't have to bridge the gap between the premise and the conclusion perfectly. It just has to add a little boost to some part of the gap, and make the transition slightly more likely. So, if an answer choice said something like:

In the past, having a family member's death be listed as 'alcohol-related' was a great source of shame for the family, and could lead to difficulties with life-insurance policies, death benefits, etc.

That would not guarantee that doctors of yore would intentionally mis-report alcohol-deaths because of the attitudes, but it makes it more likely!

Similarly, (C) indicates that more doctors now are trained to recognize alcohol-related deaths for what they are. This does not guarantee that the shift in attitudes changed the training doctors receive, and that then changed the reporting - but again, it makes it more likely! This essentially fills in part of the gap between the premise (change in attitudes) and conclusion (changes in reporting choices).

Does that help clear things up a bit?

[WaltGrace1983]

Similarly, (C) indicates that more doctors now are trained to recognize alcohol-related deaths for what they are. This does not guarantee that the shift in attitudes changed the training doctors receive, and that then changed the reporting - but again, it makes it more likely! This essentially fills in part of the gap between the premise (change in attitudes) and conclusion (changes in reporting choices).

Does that help clear things up a bit?

Great thoughts here that really (and very clearly) explained what I did wrong. I totally get the core now and why the conclusion is the way it is. Thanks. However, I am still a bit hung up on the idea of (C) supporting the argument. I am just going to free write my thoughts a bit and if you have any follow-ups of your own that would be appreciated too. The core is as follows:

[Increase in reported deaths from alcohol-related conditions
Some attribute this to an increase in alcoholism]

Alcoholism is now viewed as a "disease" (the past it was a "moral failing")
→
Likely that more deaths are being reported as alcohol-related because physicians are more likely to identify these deaths as alcohol related

Now we have to bolster the explanation, i.e. we have to strengthen the idea that it really is because physicians are more likely to identify these deaths as alcohol related. (C) really seems to do that. It says that more physicians are now more qualified to recognize physical effects of alcoholism. This makes sense. If they are more qualified to recognize the effects then perhaps they are more likely to realize that it was alcoholism that caused the effects and thus are more likely to identify these deaths as alcohol related. This seems good.

However, this just seems to bolster the conclusion - not the argument. Yet if I look again at what you are saying, I might be proven wrong.

This does not guarantee that the shift in attitudes changed the training doctors receive, and that then changed the reporting - but again, it makes it more likely!

So what you are saying is this: Attitudes changed - we now think of alcoholism as a disease. Now because it is considered a disease rather than a moral failing, the strengthener would be that "these attitude changes caused something - maybe a new way of looking at alcoholism that affected how it gets reported, when it gets reported, etc." Either way, (C) provides this because it says that (BECAUSE OF this change and the consequential newfound interest due to alcoholism's categorization as a disease) more physicians are able to recognize alcoholism. If they are more able to recognize it, they are more likely to report it. THUS, it may not have been an increase in # of alcoholics but rather an increase in # of reports.

I hope that makes sense. Either way, I still think (C) is a long shot from the premises. It does strengthen the conclusion very well though and I guess if I was seeing this question on game day I would probably pick it and move on for that reason and because all the other answer choices sucked.

[tommywallach]

I'm just glad I didn't turn out to be wrong! : )

[Mab6q]

This question gave me a tough time for a long time so I'm going to contribute my own explanation.

This is a strengthening question, so our first goal will be to identify the argument core.

Conclusion: more deaths are being reported as alcohol related now than in the past because[b] physicians are more likely to identify these deaths as alcohol-related.

This is a causal claim - the author is saying that the physicians identifying is what is causing the increase in deaths reported.

We know that this claim will be flawed no matter what the support is because causal claims in the conclusion will always be flawed.

[b]Support: Attitudes towards alcohol have changed: it is viewed as a disease now, but before it was viewed as a moral failing.

So, argument core.

attitudes have changed (seen as disease now, not moral failing).

-->

increase in reported death is due to reporting by physicians.

Approaching this question with a critical eye, we can ask ourselves:

Does knowing that attitudes have changed ensure that it's because physicians are now reporting more that there are more deaths being reported?? NO! That is a big jump that the author made. So, we need to strengthen that bridge between the premise and the conclusion.

A. this tells us that alcohol is being reported at an earlier age due to its use by young people. This would actually provide an alternate cause for the increase - young people - which would weaken.

B. Besides the fact that this answer choice is terribly weak ("some places"???; "any disease"???), there is actually another reason I see why it's wrong. There is a shift from what B says to what we are told in the argument about moral failings.

Argument: " alcoholism is now viewed as disease, whereas before if was considered a moral failing "

This tells us that alcoholism wasnt viewed as much as a disease but as a moral failing.

B says: "susceptibility to any king of disease has been viewed as a moral failing"

In essence, B talks about diseases being viewed as moral failing, whereas argument says alcoholism. Important distinction.

C. This is our answer because i tells us the connection between it being seen as a disease and increase in reporting.

Now viewed as a disease + physicians better trained to recognize effects --> it's because these physicians are more likely to identify.

This fills that part, although only partially, and strengthens the argument.

D. Our of scope.

E. Same as D, who cares.

[keane.xavier]

Like WaltGrace, this question gave me more trouble than I thought it would. When I sat down to review this question, I couldn't identify what impact a few answer choices had on the author's argument. An hour or two later, this is my write-up, shaped in part by the guidance in this thread and the time spent staring aimlessly at my prep test:

This is your classic “explained phenomenon” argumentative structure.

Phenomenon: there has been an increase in reported deaths from alcohol-related conditions.

Healthcare officials: this phenomenon is because of an increase in alcoholism.

Author: this phenomenon is because attitudes toward alcoholism have changed, therefore making it more likely that doctors are identifying these deaths as alcohol-related.

We’re being asked to strengthen the author’s argument that the phenomenon (increase in reported alcohol-related deaths) may be attributed to an increased likelihood that physicians are identifying the deaths as alcohol-related because attitudes toward alcoholism have changed (it is now considered a disease rather than a moral failing).

My response to the argument would be: why would doctors be more likely to identify alcohol-related deaths solely because alcoholism is now viewed differently? To strengthen this argument, we need a reason as to why doctors would be more likely to identify alcohol-related deaths because of a shift in views toward alcoholism.

Perhaps this reason could be that it is no longer considered a moral failing and is thus less embarrassing, thus increasing the likelihood that they “identify” it. Perhaps because it is now considered a disease, they’re taught how to identify and to treat it properly.

A. Although I at first struggled to come up with an explanation for this answer choice, here it is: this answer choice supports the notion that the increase in alcohol-related deaths is due to alcoholism, as increasingly younger people are using alcohol, which puts more people at risk for developing into alcoholics. Perhaps this doesn’t prove that they’ll eventually develop into alcoholics or die, but it does suggest that more people are at risk and thus supports the health care officials’ argument that the phenomenon is due to an increase in alcoholism.

B. While this may be true, this doesn’t tell us whether this conception—that susceptibility to disease is akin to moral failing—is widely held now, as this answer choice only says “in some places and times.” Without this information, this cannot impact the argument in any way. With this information, or if we knew that this conception was held now, this answer choice would actually weaken the argument: susceptibility to alcoholism would be akin to moral failing, showing that attitudes toward alcoholism haven't really changed as the author purports they have. Either way, this isn’t the answer choice that we’re looking for: at best, it doesn’t impact the argument; at worst, it weakens it.

C. Ah, yes. This answer choice introduces information that would provide a reason as to why doctors are more likely to identify alcohol-related deaths. If alcoholism is viewed as a disease now, rather than a moral failing, and if more physicians now than in the past are trained to recognize the physical effects of alcoholism, whether or not this is because it is now viewed as a disease, this suggests that physicians are more likely to identify these deaths as alcohol-related. Thus, this answer choice supports the author’s argument.

D. We aren’t concerned with the “best” treatment for alcoholism. We’re concerned with explaining why a particular phenomenon (an increase in the number of reported alcohol-related deaths) has occurred. Because this doesn’t support the author’s notion that physicians are more likely to identify alcohol-related deaths, this answer cannot strengthen the argument. And, quite frankly, this answer is out of scope.

E. Like with A, I struggled at first to comprehend how, exactly, to respond to this answer choice. However, the fact that many health officials are not physicians doesn’t itself support the author’s argument that the observed phenomenon is due to physicians being more likely to identify alcohol-related deaths. This answer choice seems to want you to think that this undermines the health officials’ credibility, but the health officials don’t need to be physicians to make an argument as to why there is an increase in reported alcohol-related deaths. Furthermore, the argument that they made (the phenomenon is due to an increase in alcoholism) doesn’t rely upon their being physicians, either. One doesn’t need to be a physician to be able to use statistics.