#13 - Weaken

[TigerJin]

This question gets me everytime. I can only eliminate answer choice C. All of the other answer choices appear to weaken the argument by showing benefits to imprisoning debtors or that business shutting down somehow boost the economy and the workers find work regardless.

Can you show me how to eliminate the wrong answers and find the correct one here? Thanks.

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi TigerJin,

Let's take the answer choices one at a time, looking at why they are wrong.

A: Even if they subsequently become more responsible, that doesn't alleviate all of the problems caused to society, discussed in the passage.
B: This doesn't say whether the company was dissolved; we don't know whether the harsh policies were applied here. Therefore, can't impact the argument either way.
D: It is possible the economy would have grown even more without the dissolution of the company, so this one doesn't impact the argument.

I hope this helps!

[TigerJin]

That works! Thank you! I get it.

[mN2mmvf]

Hi,

Can you help me better understand why (E) is correct and (A) is incorrect? I see that E is a much more sweeping result, but I thought (A) might be a better choice because it directly links the harsh punishment to the particular behavior that seems to result: greater economic responsibility. Whereas the result in (E) seems much more vague, less causal, and subject to alternate causes.

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

My analysis of answer E, mN2mmvf, is that is a very powerful causal weaken answer, an example of where the cause is present the effect is absent. Let's look a little closer, shall we?

The passage tells us that imprisoning debtors or shutting down businesses harms pretty much everyone - the creditor doesn't get paid, the individual debtors no longer earn wages, people are put out of work, and society at large gets little other than removing a bad actor from the economy. Later, the passage tells us that the shift away from punishment is good for society because "the public good is better served by allowing debt-heavy corporations to continue to operate, and indebted individuals to continue to earn wages, than by disabling insolvent economic entities." Later still, he tells us that the new approach has the goal of restoring the businesses and individuals to economic health.

Ultimately, what we are being told is that punishment is bad for the economy. The new way causes more good than the old.

Answer A is a contender in my book, but a pretty weak one. Okay, great, most of those imprisoned become more responsible. But does the economy improve as a result? Do the individuals end up better off than they were before their bankruptcy? What about those that don't become more responsible, and what about corporations that are forced to close their doors?

Answer E is, as you said, more sweeping, but it's more than just that. Answer E tells us very clearly that when you compare the countries that take the punitive approach to those that do not, the former have healthier economies than the latter. The cause - punishment - is present, and the effect - harm to the economy - is absent, and in fact the opposite occurs. As that is one of our five favorite ways to attack any causal argument, it's a lot stronger than answer A with it's "most" element.

No need to worry about possible alternate causes for their better economic health, because we don't need to be sure that punishment did the job. We aren't looking to disprove the argument, but merely to weaken it, to make us question whether the conclusion was valid. E does that much more convincingly than A, in my opinion.

Hope that helps!

[mN2mmvf]

Thanks Adam!

[goingslow]

Hi! Can you explain why (D) is wrong?

Doesn't the latter part where it says "the local economy nevertheless demonstrated robust growth in the immediate aftermath" a testament to harsh punishment's positive influence on the economy?

Many thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

goingslow,

Is the influence positive? Hundreds of people lost their jobs. The local economy had some growth in the immediate aftermath. Which is more intense? This answer choice doesn't really make that clear. Therefore, I really don't see how that shows that the harsh punishment was a good thing. It had a negative effect and a positive, short-term effect. We'd need any information about weighing them, which we lack.

Robert Carroll

[izbehr]

I really don't understand how D weakens. Economic health of countries seem determined by a whole host of factors and bankruptcy laws seem inconsequential, all things considered. How can I adjust my approach to correct for this?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi izbehr,

Answer choice (D) doesn't weaken---it's an incorrect answer choice.

However, if you are looking at answer choice (E), it weakens by showing that the cause exists but the effect does not. The passage says that imprisoning debtors is bad because it harms the economic health of the country. That's the argument against punitive measures against debtors. It's not out of the kindness of anyone's heart to let debtors reorganize their debts. It's out of concern for overall societal benefit.

Answer choice (E) weakens the connection between prison for debtors and bad economic outcomes for societies by showing that there are some places that use debtors' prisons that still have better economic health than those that do not punish debtors. That shows the cause (debtors' prisons) occurs without the effect (bad economic outcomes for society). It may not strongly weaken the argument. But showing the cause exists without the effect casts doubt on the relationship suggested by the stimulus.

Hope that helps!