#7 - The cause of the epidemic that devastated Athens in 430

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

WeakenX. The correct answer choice is (B)

In 430 B.C. an epidemic devastated Athens, and many of the victims had hiccups, according to
historical accounts. Since the Ebola virus causes the only known disease associated with hiccups,
and accounts of the devastation also discuss other symptoms of the same disease, the author of this
stimulus concludes that the cause can finally be identified as the Ebola virus disease.

• Premise: Accounts of the devastation in Athens in 430 B.C. mention hiccups, and the
  disease from the Ebola virus is the only disease known to be associated with
  this symptom.
  
  Premise: The same accounts mention other symptoms that are also associated with this
  same disease.
  
  Conclusion: The cause of the Athenian epidemic can finally be identified (as the Ebola
  disease).

The stimulus is followed by a Weaken Except question, so every choice will weaken the author’s
argument except one — this means that four of the five answer choices will weaken the author’s
conclusion that the Ebola virus must have caused the epidemic that brought widespread devastation
to Athens in 430 B.C. The correct answer choice will be the only one that fails to weaken the
author’s argument.

Answer choice (A): If Ebola is known to bring particular symptoms, one would expect those
symptoms to show up in historical accounts. If, as this choice provides, they did not, this would
weaken the author’s conclusion that the Ebola virus must have been the culprit. Since this choice
weakens the author’s argument, it must be one of four incorrect answers to this Weaken Except
question.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. The fact that at least one Ebola virus
sufferer did not report hiccups does not refute the evidence, which is that many of the victims did
have hiccups, a symptom of only one known disease—the one caused by the Ebola virus.

Answer choice (C): If certain host animals are required to carry the Ebola virus, and those animals
were not living in Athens in 430 B.C., this would tend to refute the claim that the Ebola virus was the
cause of the epidemic. Since this choice does weaken the author’s argument, it cannot be the correct
answer to this WeakenX question.

Answer choice (D): If the disease in Athens was known to be less contagious than the Ebola virus,
this would certainly hurt the author’s argument that the devastation was caused by Ebola. Since the
right answer choice must be the one that doesn’t weaken the author’s argument, this choice should be
ruled out.

Answer choice (E): This choice provides that the Athenian disease lasted longer than the Ebola
disease is known to last, which would certainly weaken the author’s claim that Ebola’s been
established as the cause. Since this hurts the conclusion drawn in the stimulus, it can be ruled out of
contention for this WeakenX question.

[melissa27]

For this question, involving the Athenian epidemic can you please why B is correct and the others are incorrect?

I know that for a weaken except your answer can do anything BUT weaken (strengthen, no effect etc) but I'm not seeing why answer choice B is better than the rest.

[Jon Denning]

Hi Melissa - thanks for the question. As we should do with all weaken questions (and all arguments in general, really), let's begin by finding the conclusion: the cause of the epidemic that devastated Athens in 430 BC was Ebola. Notice first that this is clearly causal. So why the cause/effect conclusion? Symptoms common to Ebola victims (hiccups and others) were also present in many of the epidemic's victims, and no other known disease has hiccups as a symptom.

So we're looking for four answers to disrupt/break the cause and effect relationship here. The most powerful way to do that is to simply identify clear differences in Ebola epidemics and the epidemic in Athens:

A. Ebola causes many symptoms we know the earlier epidemic didn't
D. Ebola is much more contagious than the disease that caused the Athens epidemic
E. Ebola epidemics are shorter than the Athens epidemic

Or we could point out a difference in the conditions then vs those necessary for Ebola:

C. The animals that transmit Ebola didn't live in Athens when the epidemic there happened (no way Ebola could have spread)

So what about B? B doesn't attack the argument because the stimulus simply says "many victims" in the Athens epidemic experienced hiccups. So saying that Ebola doesn't cause hiccups in everyone doesn't contradict that (if anything it could be thought to go along with it to some degree: from B not everyone gets hiccups, and from stimulus "many" got hiccups, which could certainly mean not everyone did). Does it strengthen? Meh. Not really. But it certainly doesn't weaken.

Hope that helps!

[melissa27]

Thanks it did. By breaking it down you make it so simple and easy, THANKS!

[mN2mmvf]

Hi, How does (E) weaken the argument? Perhaps the Athenian epidemic was ebola, but ebola today is now shorter-lived because our public health systems are better able to contain it. That explanation would have nothing to do with the disease itself; ebola could still be the cause of the epidemic in Athens.

[AthenaDalton]

Hi mN2,

Answer choice (E) weakens the argument by showing a difference between the Ebola virus and the Athenian plague. You're right that this isn't the strongest counter-argument, given that Ebola is a pretty recently-discovered virus. But keep in mind that the author's argument is pretty weak: he's saying that since Ebola victims experience hiccups, and Athenian plague victims experienced hiccups, the Athenians likely contracted Ebola over 2,000 years ago. Any fact that shows a difference between the Athenian virus and Ebola makes the argument less likely to be true, even if just by a small amount.

I hope this helps clear things up. Good luck studying!

[sherpower]

Hi Powerscore.

What I am not getting here is why A weakens the argument. If you think about it, the fact that it doesn't appear to the historical accounts is almost irrelevant. Why do we care that it didn't appear in any of the accounts? It could have happened and never be reported in the accounts. On the contrary, B, seems to fit perfectly your bible analysis of weakening the causality: Show that the cause occurs without the effect occurring. if you have ebola and don't have hiccups, the causality is weakened, which makes the conclusion less likely and B wrong. What am I missing?

Thanks

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi sherpower,

Thanks for the question! Keep in mind that the incorrect answers will weaken at least a little bit, but it doesn't have to be a ton. You're absolutely right that, with A, symptoms could have occurred and not been reported in the accounts we have. However, since we're basing the conclusion on the symptoms reported, knowing there's a mismatch between what was reported and what the actual symptoms are weakens the article at least a little. On the other hand, with B, it doesn't really matter whether everyone has hiccups or just some people; the question isn't whether any single person had Ebola, the question is whether the epidemic was caused by Ebola. B says only some people would have hiccups, and the stimulus says "many" victims had hiccups, so that matches up completely. B does not weaken the argument at all. I hope that helps!

[sherpower]

Thanks Emily, that makes sense. That's a great point, the "many" in the argument completely destroys the causal relationship between ebola and hiccups. However, overall that argument has too many loose ends and the conclusion is almost invalid, as it takes evidence in support of the conclusion to be conclusively establishing it ("has finally been identified"). This mismatch between the certainty of the conclusion and the uncertainty of the presented facts made me assume a causal relationship between ebola and hiccups and skip the "many" in the premises. Anyway, I see in your point how A weakens the argument a little bit and B doesn't do anything. Thanks for your help.

[Novirius]

Hi, I incorrectly marked (C) for this practice question and I want to know where I went wrong. I picked (C) based on two different readings. Since the passage said the recently discovered Ebola virus, one interpretation was to think it was referring to a particular occurrence of the Ebola virus. In which case, the particular host animals in that situation may be different from the one that hosted it in Athens years ago.

Even if that interpretation were incorrect, and the passage was talking about Ebola in general, I wasn't certain if Ebola needed a specific host or if it could exist in nature (ex: Water supplies). Therefore, whether the animal lived in Athens or even exists seemed irrelevant.