Question 13 is a flaw-slash-descriptive weakening question.

This one is a very cookie-cutter. It's almost like a carbon copy of that

dromamine C-sickness medication question from very long ago, back in our

core curriculum. We talked about that. Anyway, so they say

identify a flaw. There's at least one other glaring flaw that comes out from

this conclusion, which is, you know, if I tell you like,

oh, one percent of apples are delicious, so therefore how many apples are

delicious? Well, that's a stupid question because

percentages don't translate to numbers like that. You need to know the

denominator, right? You need to know one percent. Well, how many apples do we have?

We have 100 apples, then it's one, right? If we have 200 apples, then it's two. So

anyway, you get the idea. But that flaw was just

none of the answers talk about that flaw, right? They talk about the

well, the dromamine anti-C-sickness medication flaw. So

let's take a look. This question also takes the shape of a phenomenon,

and then once we identify the phenomenon, we tell a story. We tell a

hypothesis about the phenomenon, and of course, this hypothesis sucks.

the annual number of crimes per 100,000 people.

So, I don't know, let's just say theft. It was one

per 100,000 people. The survey shows no significant reduction in crime rate in

the past 20 years, so let's just make this easy. Let's say 20 years

ago was 1980. I understand now it's not 2000. So no

significant reduction, right? So back then it was one out of 100,000 was

our theft rate. What is it now? Well, either the same, right? No

significant reduction, so like about the same.

You know, let's just write some words. About the same or higher,

right? About the same or higher. So, you know, which world is, like,

it's either like the same world, right? About the same world, or it's a

worse world, where crime rates are higher, right? So crime rates have

just not significantly reduced. That's just what that means. But, hey, but

look what else happened. Incarceration rates skyrocketed,

right? We sort of, you know, quote-unquote gave society medication,

right? And incarceration rates went up from 1980 to 2000.

There, incarceration went up. So, see, do you see, like, what I mean when I say,

like, it's kind of like the drama, like, oh,

people get seasick, they're still seasick, or even worse, or even worse,

right? Who reports getting symptoms of seasickness? Who reports they're throwing up?

Right? People who took dromamine, right? Incarceration rates have skyrocketed.

People took a lot of dromamine. And even despite the fact that

incarceration has skyrocketed, that people took anti-seasickness medication,

right? They still report symptoms of seasickness. The theft has

increased, or about the same, or same level seasickness.

Therefore, we conclude anti-seasickness medication is useless,

right? Therefore, we conclude, right, this conclusion,

our society's medication for curing crime is useless.

Demonstrates putting more people in prison cannot help to reduce crime.

Right? So, now, of course, the mistake in the, back in the seasickness medication

was that this would have been way worse if they

didn't take, they would have been dead, let's say, if they didn't take

anti-seasickness medication, right? So, the analog here is that this could have

been way worse if we didn't, if incarceration rates

Ignores the possibility that crime rates would have significantly increased

if it had not been for the greater rate of imprisonment,

right? Analog to seasickness ignores the possibility that

symptoms of seasickness would have been significantly worse if it wasn't for

dromamine, right? So, it's a carbon copy of that question.

Now, the glaring error I kind of pointed out was that

putting, I don't, putting more people in prison, I don't know that that happened,

right? Because what you, what we were told is that the

rate of incarceration has, right, the percentage of the population has

increased substantially, right? That's like that question I asked you in

the beginning. Percentages don't translate directly into numbers without

knowing the denominator, right? You can't just be like, oh, I don't know,

five percent went up to fifty percent, therefore,

way more numbers. No, no. What if the denominator is a billion over here

and denominator is like ten over here, right? Fifty percent of ten is five. I'll

let you figure out what five percent of billion is,

right? So, something, you know, of course, none of the other answer choice say

anything close to that. Inverse without justification because

police department has, like, what are you high on?

Overlooks the possibility that the population has increased significantly

over the past 20 years. I don't think that's, was that overlooked? I don't

think they presume anything about the denominator.

Or actually, you know, I take that back. I think, I think the presumption is,

is that the population stayed the same or increased,

right? So, certainly didn't overlook the possibility that population has

increased, right? I think the presumption made was that because in order to go

from, oh, increased percentage, therefore, increased number,

you have to presume that the population was constant

or it increased. So, you certainly didn't overlook it. Presumes without providing

What? Takes for granted that the number of prisoners must be proportional to the

number of crimes committed. I, I mean, what, what are our numbers of

prisoners? I, we don't, we don't know, right?

What are the number of crimes committed? We also don't know. So, it

presumes that one thing that the argument doesn't know must be

proportional to another thing that the argument doesn't know.

Yeah, great answer choice.