#8 - During the 1980s the homicide rate in Britain rose by

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken-CE. The correct answer choice is (E)

The argument starts with a series of facts about the homicide rate in Britain in the 80s, a knife usually being the weapon used, the availability of such knives, and how such deaths are typically unpremeditated. From this factual base, the author makes a causal argument that blames government policies for the resulting deaths:

• Cause Effect
  
  Permissive policies increased homicide rate

As with any causal argument, there could be many explanations for the situation, and you are looking for an answer that would undermine this causal relationship.


Answer choice (A): This answer has multiple problems. First, the argument was clear in discussing "unpremeditated assaults" whereas this answer focuses on those who "intends to cause the death of another." These are different groups and thus a weak staging ground for an attack on the argument. Second, the argument is about knives, permissive policies, and homicides. The fact that other methods of killing exist that can be used has no effect on the author's argument because there is no evidence that they ever were used (and in fact there is evidence against it from the second sentence, which indicates that a knife was the usual weapon of choice).

Students who choose this answer sometimes fall prey to the idea that knives were the cause, and they examine (A) and believe it suggests that guns or poison was the cause. That is not what is occurring here. For more info, see Adam's excellent comments on this answer below.

Answer choice (B): This answer focuses on unpremeditated assaults, which is a part of our argument, but the author was focused on homicides (and the homicide rates would be known since when people go missing it's typically noticed). So, even if this answer were true, it doesn't affect the argument since we know the homicide rate and what caused those deaths.

Answer choice (C): If this answer were posed to the author, they would respond: "Well that's unfortunate, but it has no effect on my argument because I'm talking about knives used in unpremeditated assaults in a family that result in homicide. Whatever else someone does with knives isn't my focus here."

Answer choice (D): The argument explicitly doesn't assume this, as the focus here is on "unpremeditated assaults," and this answer references "purchased as part of a deliberate plan to commit murder..." For more info, here's part of Adam's excellent comments on this answer from below:

• "The problem with D is that the author didn't necessarily assume that the knives were purchased with murderous intent in order for the permissive policies to be the problem. It could be that the the knives are purchased with completely innocent intentions - the buyer likes the look of it, wants to have it for self-defense, wants to use it for hunting, or just wants to cut their steak with it. In fact, the author says explicitly that the murders are mostly NOT premeditated, so he definitely isn't assuming premeditation. This answer does not weaken the argument, because the author didn't make that assumption.
  
  Answer D looks more like a Flaw in the Reasoning answer, by the way, in that it describes what happened in the argument rather than introducing new information to make the conclusion less likely to be true, as a Weaken answer should. We want more than a description of the problem when we want to weaken an argument. We want something that takes advantage of that weakness."

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer. This answer effectively undermines the stated cause of the increase in homicides, and calls into question the data being used in this instance by posing the question of what exactly is a "potentially lethal knife?" If such a knife is just a normal household knife of the type most people own, then they have always been present in houses, and thus the government policies would not be the cause of the homicide rate spike. Alternatively, if the "potentially lethal knife" is a more exotic piece of weaponry, then most people do not have those in their house, and thus it wouldn't be the government policies that lead to the homicide spike. With this answer, then, no matter how you define "potentially lethal knife," the causal argument is undermined. Thus, this is the correct answer.

[willmcchez]

I think the reason I got this incorrect is because the credited response gives two explanations. The first part seems to strengthen the conclusion, while the second part is quite strong in weakening it.

How common are these types of answer choices? Admittedly, I didn't read the whole AC after the first part, as it seemed to strengthen the conclusion. But even if I had, I'm not certain I would have selected it because E seems to both strengthen and weaken. I could be mistaken.

[Adam Tyson]

Actually, willmcchez, BOTH sides of answer E weaken the conclusion that the government is to blame for the increase in the homicide rate due to their permissive polices on knife sales. That's a causal argument, isn't it? The permissive policies are the cause and the increased homicide rate is the effect. To weaken it, attack it with the classic causal attacks!

The first part dealing with "ordinary household knives" tells us that the while the cause (it's easy to buy these knives) has long been around, the effect (more unpremeditated homicides) has only recently come to pass. In other words, the cause was present and the effect was not, a classic way to weaken causal reasoning.

The second part dealing with weaponry, it tells us that those knives are generally not in homes. That's telling us that the cause (the types of knives the government allowed sold) is ABSENT in the place where the effect (those murders) are happening. The effect is present where the cause is absent - that's another classic way to attack a causal argument!

Answer E stabs this argument in the front AND in the back! It kills it no matter which way it cuts!

Okay, that was a little much, so I'll stop right there. Take another look and see if that helps!

[onlywinter]

I chose E but am curious why D is wrong.

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for asking, onlywinter. The problem with D is that the author didn't necessarily assume that the knives were purchased with murderous intent in order for the permissive policies to be the problem. It could be that the the knives are purchased with completely innocent intentions - the buyer likes the look of it, wants to have it for self-defense, wants to use it for hunting, or just wants to cut their steak with it. In fact, the author says explicitly that the murders are mostly NOT premeditated, so he definitely isn't assuming premeditation. This answer does not weaken the argument, because the author didn't make that assumption.

Answer D looks more like a Flaw in the Reasoning answer, by the way, in that it describes what happened in the argument rather than introducing new information to make the conclusion less likely to be true, as a Weaken answer should. We want more than a description of the problem when we want to weaken an argument. We want something that takes advantage of that weakness.

[lanereuden]

If the potentially lethal knives referred to are ordinary household knives, such knives were common before the rise in the homicide rate; but if they are weaponry, such knives are not generally available in households.

The problem I have with e is that it makes all these statements that are not stated in the passage. Nowhere in the passage does it state that if weaponry, such knives are not generally available. The passage says, in fact, potentially lethal knives are sold openly and legally...

That leads me to believe that the question stem:
Which one of the following is the strongest criticism of the argument above?
Should instead read:
Which one of the following, if true, is the strongest criticism of the argument above?

If what I am pointing out does not make sense, then I would ask:
I am confused: What I am not seeing?

[lanereuden]

I would like a real short explanation as to why A is wrong here. Can someone expound as to why A is wrong?

[Adam Tyson]

The stem is asking us to pick the answer that is the best attack on the argument. I think it's safe to assume that the truth of the answers is presumed, although in more modern tests they would have included the "if true" in the stem. Perhaps this question, from 1992, is what taught them the importance of doing that?

Despite that, the answer is still valid and is still the best of the bunch. Think of it this way: five different people have been asked, as part of a debate competition, to respond to the argument in the stimulus. The one with the best answer, the one that does most to undermine the argument, wins a prize. Who wins here? Who did the best job of countering the claim that the government is to blame? Answer E is by far the best response.

Why not A? Because it fails on at least two fronts. First, the argument is about unpremeditated assaults, and answer A is about premeditated murder, the wrong sorts of crimes. Not too many people are going to poison someone suddenly in the heat of an argument!

Second, the argument is about what caused the big spike in homicides. Permissive laws regarding the sale of potentially lethal knives are blamed. "They could have chosen another weapon if they had planned ahead" does nothing to undermine the claim about what actually caused the increase. Would there have been such a big spike in murders if not for those permissive laws? Answer A gives us no reason to think so.

[lanereuden]

Lets assume A had said other means besides knives, etc. that can be used to achieve homicide by a person who unpremeditatedly assaults/kills.
Now, the reason this hypothetical answer choice A is wrong is because:
Means, motive, opportunity--elements of murder:
So with A, we are basically talking about means:
There are other means to kill.
But that does not matter because, at the end of the day, the killers still allegedly use these types of knives.
That is, even if A is true regarding the existence of guns/poisons, that just means killers disregarded those means and used knives instead.
But at the same time, isn't also true that, now that we have changed premediated to unpremeditated, we can argue that killers could easily have grabbed a different object in the room to kill, like a fork by fireplaces used to move fire-logs?

What's strange to me is typically you weaken argument by showing else as the trigger for the effect, and that is what A seems to do.

I mean, let's you, Adam, have the following- For instance, hypothetically, you find out you have excess of calcium in your body. You believe it's caused from your mother giving you too much milk (govt giving you too much access to knives). Someone points out that cheese could also be the cause of this excess.
Adam responds: Yes, cheese could be the cause, and so could legumes and yogurt, but that does not detract from the fact that she gave me too much milk leading to this issue of excess.
Me: But in reality, may very well be the cheese could have done it to you: I mean, what real evidence would you have here to defend yourself/prove your friend wrong?
To me, in this case, the prospect of milk as a cause weakens your argument (to what extent, I don't know, but it certainly casts aspersions on it).

----------------------------------------------------------------

But in #8 here, it does not (that is, assuming that we have switched from premediated to unpremediated). That is, in #8 showing something else as a trigger for the cause does not weaken argument...it seems to be exception to my notion of how to weaken argument...I undersetand that you pose the quesetion, as well if not for these knives, then what else accounts for this rise in homicides of the unpremdiated variety? Still, I just don't see the reasoning.

(Yes i Understand premediated is sufficent cause to rule out A because we are talking about unpremediated)

[lanereuden]

Its like strange because It feels like you are fixated on disproving that a cause-effect relationship exists, while I am fixating on showing something else could have led to that other thing, if that makes sense. (Yes- I know that technically the second idea is subsumed in the first idea (i.e. disproving cause-effect relationship), but I am trying to express, but I do not know how exactly here given this apparent anomaly in my eyes.)