Hi its_me,

Whenever you are attacking a CR note down the limiting words of argument while diagramming (assuming you know what diagramming means).
In this argument the limiting words are just the 'number of deaths'. The argument has taken these numbers as the only basis and concluded that it was safe to go overseas in armed forces.

From simple maths you know that
50 % of 4 = 2 and 2 % of 100 = 2

Ringing any bells???

Well the point is that just number of death are not sufficient to conclude about safety. If you are able to select any answer choic which might give you an idea about the ratio or %age of the deaths then that answer choice would weaken it. Keeping this in mind scan the answer choices.

(A) Counting deaths among members of the armed forces who served in the United States in addition to deaths among members of the armed forces serving overseas
Nops...this would not weaken the conlusion as the conclusion is about members of armed forces died overseas.

(B) Expressing the difference between the numbers of deaths among civilians and members of the armed forces as a percentage of the total number of deaths
Expressing all as a % of total deaths would not serve the purpose

(C) Separating deaths caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat injuries
Out of scope

(D) Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths
Bingo this is what we want...but still scan another choice.

(E) Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed forces."
Deaths caused by accidents...is it mentioned in the passage? Will this comparison give us the desired info...Nops.

So the OA is D. and not E

Thanks Komal.




Paresa.

i still feel D should be the answer