Self-study
Support During the 1980s the homicide rate in Britain rose by 50 percent. ███ ██████ ████ ███████ ███ █ ██████ ███████████ ██████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ██████ ████ ████████ ██████ █████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ██████████████ ████████ ██████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ███████████ ████ █████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ████ ███ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ███████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ████ ███ ██████████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ ██████ ████ ██████ ███████ ██ ██ █████
Argument Summary: Causal Reasoning
The argument comes to a conclusion — essentially a hypothesis — about who is to blame for the phenomenon of a 50% rise in Britain's homicide rate in the 1980s. The author points out that the weapon used in these cases was usually a knife, that potentially lethal knives are sold legally and openly in many shops, and that most homicide deaths arise from unpremeditated assaults within the family. The author suggests that even if such assaults are increasing, they probably wouldn't lead to deaths if lethal knives weren't available. Thus, the author concludes that the government is to blame for the rising homicide rate, because it allows these knives to be sold.
Analysis: Ways to Weaken
The author doesn't provide any evidence for why the government specifically should be considered to blame. Even if she doesn't want to blame the family members involved in these assaults, it seems just as plausible that she could blame the shops that sell and advertise potentially lethal knives, or perhaps television shows that lead to greater violence within families, and so on. So one way to weaken the argument would be to suggest an alternative explanation by indicating that someone other than the government bears responsibility for the rise in homicide rates.
8.
Which one of the following ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
There are other █████ ███████ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ █ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ██ ████████
Incorrect. Even if it is true that these other means could be used to kill another person, the argument isn't about hypothetical means of homicide, but about the causes behind the rise in homicide rates in the 1950s, which were mostly caused by knives. We have no reason to think that these other means of accomplishing homicide are as accessible as knives, let alone in a family context.
b
It is impossible ██ ████ ███ ████ ██████████████ ████████ █████ ██████ ███ ███████ █████ ████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████████████
(B) wouldn't weaken. The argument isn't about the number of unpremeditated assaults in general. It's about unpremeditated assaults that lead to homicide deaths, which are presumably much more likely to be reported than other kinds of unpremeditated assaults, and which we already know make up the majority of homicide deaths. So (B) doesn't undermine the author's argument.
c
Knives are used ██ █████ █████████ ███████ █████ ████ ██████ ████ ██████████████ ████████ ██████ ███ ███████
Irrelevant. We know from the premises that homicide deaths arising from unpremeditated assaults within the family make up most homicide deaths, and that those types of homicides would likely not occur if potentially lethal knives were not readily available. Since we're focused on this specific set that makes up most homicides, it doesn't matter to the argument if knives happen to be used for homicides in other contexts.
d
The argument assumes ███████ █████████████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ████████ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ████ ██ █ ██████████ ████ ██ ██████ ██████ ██ ██ ███████ ████████ ████ ██ █ ██████ ███████
Incorrect. The argument never assumes this; in fact, the author is clear that most homicides result from unpremeditated — i.e., unplanned — assaults within the family.
e
If the potentially ██████ ██████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████████ ███████ ████ ██████ ████ ██████ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ███ ██ ████ ███ █████████ ████ ██████ ███ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ███████████
Correct. This point casts doubt on the author's argument that the government is to blame for allowing lethal knives to be available. Notice that the author never specifies what a "potentially lethal" knife is. If these are just household knives, then, as (E) says, such knives were common in homes even before the homicide rate went up. So it would be hard to blame the government's "permissiveness" for the rise in homicide rates, since the government was equally permissive in allowing such knives to be sold even when the homicide rate was lower.
And if such knives are weaponry, most homes don't have such knives readily available — so the author's assumption that the government is to blame for allowing families to get hold of such knives would be undermined as well.