Q24 - Between 1951 and 1963

[lesser.chris]

Can someone explain the reasoning here? Can't clearly discern why it's D and not E.

Thank you!

[bbirdwell]

First identify the conclusion:
the prohibition made people want and use more alcohol

Premise:
in the first 5 years of prohibition, deaths related to alcohol were higher than they were before the prohibition.

Now, consider any obvious gaps in the logic here. The first thing to notice is that it's a causal argument -- basically, that the prohibition caused the deaths. So the primary means of weakening this argument would be to suggest other causes (all the hospitals closed, alcohol diseases take a long time to manifest, etc.)

With that in mind, check out the choices.

(A) weakens -- the diseases take at least 5 years to show up.

(B) weakens -- cause of the diseases was not alcohol.

(C) weakens -- increase in death rate happened consistently, not just during prohibition.

(D) doesn't do anything. The conclusion has nothing to do with HOW the alcohol was produced.

(E) weakens -- the people who were already sick didn't get medical help during prohibition. This could explain why the death rate was higher, thus weakening the conclusion that the prohibition made them drink more.

Does that help?

[alexg89]

(D) doesn't do anything. The conclusion has nothing to do with HOW the alcohol was produced.

It also says that they consumed it

[shodges]

I think it's the fact that C, if anything, weakens the conclusion by showing that the rates have been consistent over the time periods in question. If people had wanted to drink more, you would expect a corresponding increase in the death rate

Please some one correct this line I thinking if made in error

[zip]

I think it's the fact that C, if anything, weakens the conclusion by showing that the rates have been consistent over the time periods in question. If people had wanted to drink more, you would expect a corresponding increase in the death rate

Please some one correct this line I thinking if made in error

C does weaken because it attacks the cause and effect argument. That is, there is the same increase with or without prohibition. Effect without cause, a classic weakener.

[WaltGrace1983]

C does weaken because it attacks the cause and effect argument. That is, there is the same increase with or without prohibition. Effect without cause, a classic weakener.

I thought about (C) for awhile, knowing that (D) was the right answer. Yet the way that you put it makes total sense! Thanks!

While (D) does weaken more so than (C), I cannot help but think I would have picked it if (D) had been a different answer. (C) seems to say that the death rate increased just as sharply in three different stages: pre-prohibiton, during prohibition, and post-prohibiton. Let's attach a number to it to make more sense, let's say that increase was 5%.

So now that we have established that, one might say that this weakens because it shows that, with or without the alcohol prohibition, the death rate from alcohol-related diseases was increasing (by 5% every time). Therefore, it probably wasn't that people wanted and used more alcohol more than they would have. Instead, it was probably something else contributing to the death rates. Because, if it was that people wanted and used more alcohol during that time, why would it be the case that the death rates were still increasing even when the prohibition was NOT in effect?

Is that the correct line of thinking?

(D) does not weaken (perhaps even strengthens) because it fails to show how the methods used are relevant and it also fails to show an relative statement. In order to weaken, we may want to show that alcohol was wanted and used MORE than if not forbidden.

[HazelZ814]

I think C is correct because it compared the increase rate with two other periods - the ones before and after the prohibition. If the prohibition indeed made people want and use alcohol more, then the increase rate during the prohibition should be higher (instead of as sharply as) than the time before and after.

With that being said, I think this choice will be much weaker if it didn't make a comparison among those three periods. Imagine the choice merely said "the death rate during the prohibition increased", then we would have no idea if it's contributed by the prohibition or something else.