Assumption

Recent research has indicated that married people are not only happier than unmarried people, but also healthier. This study has been widely reported by the media, with most commentators concluding that being married is good for one's health and attitude.

The conclusion is God!

The conclusion of the media commentators depends on which of the following assumptions?

A.The longer people are married, the happier and healthier they become. --> The conclusion is not about the length/duration of the marriage.

B.Married couples who had a large, extravagant wedding are happier than those who had a small, simple ceremony. --> No comparison between cost of weddings.

C.Married people cannot get depressed. --> Contender. The comparison is between the happiness quotients of single and married people. If you negate this, the statement becomes - Married people can get depressed. That does not dissolve the argument.

D.Single people with depression or health problems are just as likely to get married as are other single people. --> Single people with depression or health problems are not just as likely to get married as are other single people --> This dissolves the argument. Why? If single people with depression were not to get married as likely, that means that they are screened automatically. The ones who marry are not depressed. So "marrying" does not make them happier. They already were!

E.Some marriages are more harmonious than others. --> No comparison between marriages here!

Hope I could get my point across properly!

D - If depressed and/or unhealthy people were less likely to get married than happy and/or healthy people, then the state of being married wouldn't directly correlate to better physical or mental health. Therefore the commentators' conclusion would be dubious.

Thanks.I got it now.

bharti.2010 wrote:Source: Manhattan


I am confused in this question. All options look like either extreme or irrelevent to me. Can someone please explain why D is correct?

There are two kinds of assumption : defender role and supporter role - an assumption in defender role will save the argument from the possible external attack ( weakener)

when ever there is a cause and a effect there are three ways to weaken it :
1. showing that a different cause will result in the effect.
2. Inverse the cause and effect relationship.
3. Show that the cause or effect are two independent events.

Now lets apply these in this problem :

Cause ( Getting married ) ------------------ Effect ( Good health and attitude )

The three possible weaken scenerio :

1. some other cause (X) will result in the good health and attitude ( effect )
2. Single People with good health and attitude ( Effect ) will result in the marriage of an individual ( cause ) - D is assuming this condition not to be possible. Hence it is an assumption in defender role.
3. Both are independent events.

Lets us also apply negation rule to this ( the other way to solve this problem ) :


A.The shorter people are married, the happier and healthier they become. - deals with the duration of the marriage, so irrelevant
B.Married couples who had a large, extravagant wedding are not happier than those who had a small, simple ceremony. - delas with the quality of the wedding, so irrelevant
C.Married people can get depressed.- yes they can get depressed, but that will not weaken the effect and cause here.
D.Single people with depression or health problems are not just as likely to get married as are other single people. - this is a weakener here,
E.Some marriages are more harmonious than others. - again this is irrelevant !!



Hope this helps !!

Nice Explanation Avik.ch.

Thanks.