It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I thought the flaw in the argument was assuming that because half the total population was wiped out, that meant a good percentage of able-bodied people were too. but isn't B an incomplete answer? Even if the majority of the people who emigrated were old or infirm and not part of the labor force, couldn't those able bodied adults still have died from the famine?
Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"
Comments
It's not an argument. You are given seemingly conflicting premises and tasked with identifying 4 answers that would work toward reconciling them and one that does not.
B says (they did something) designed to keep more abled bodied adults around.
Yes, and also just because something was designed/intended to do something, that doesn't mean it actually succeeded. But the answer doesn't have to be airtight... it doesn't have to cause a resolution. It just has to move the needle toward one. All of them do this except for D.
Really appreciate the response, thanks for pointing out that this isn't an argument but an apparent paradox
So you mean it's fine that answer choice B only talks about one effect of emigration on the labor force since it provides one possible way to reconcile the premises
Yes it's fine. If it just makes it more likely, or contributes to wages not rising, in other words reconciling the paradox, it's likely not the right answer as we're looking for something that does this the least. Note that if this were a more difficult question, you could easily have had every answer work to resolve in some way... you'd be able to "make" them all work and the task would then be to find the one that does it the least.