During the 1980s the homicide rate in Britain rose by 50 percent. The weapon used usually was a knife. Potentially l...
Julie-VJuly 17, 2019
Answer Explanation
Hello!
I was wondering if someone could explain why answers B and D are wrong. I eliminated choice E because I thought D was a better argument. Many thanks in advance!
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
This is a weaken question, meaning we are looking for an answer choice that would undermine the author's argument.
Let's briefly summarize the argument.
The homicide rate rose by 50%, usually perpetuated with a knife. Knives are sold openly and legally. Most homicides are a result of unpremeditated assaults within the family, which would not result in deaths if it were not for the knives. Thus the government is to blame for allowing knives to be sold.
Let's look at (B) & (D).
(B) It is impossible to know how many unpremeditated assaults occur within the family, since many are not reported to the authority.
This answer choice is wrong because it has no impact on the validity of the conclusion. The author's conclusion relies on existing statistics of homicide deaths perpetuated by knives in the course of the domestic assault. The fact that some are unreported does not change the evidence that the argument relies on.
(D) The argument assumes without justification that the knives used to commit homicide are generally purchased as part of the deliberate plan to commit murder or to inflict grievous harm on a family member.
This answer choice is wrong because the argument never assumes that. The argument, in fact, says the opposite - "a result of unpremeditated assaults," which are by definition assaults that were committed without a deliberate advance plan.
Let me know if this helps and if you have any other questions.
