Critical Reasoning

During the 1980s the homicide rate in Britain rose by 50 percent. The weapon used usually was a knife. Potentially lethal knives arc sold openly and legally in many shops. Most homicide deaths occur as a result of unpremeditated assaults within the family. Even if these are increasing, they would probably not result in deaths if it were not for the prevalence of such knives. Thus the blame lies with the permissiveness of the government that allows such lethal weapons to be sold.

Which one of the following is the strongest criticism of the argument?

A There are other means besides knives, such as guns or poison ,that can be used to accomplish homicide by a person who intends to cause the death of another.

B It is impossible to know how many unpremeditated assaults occur within the family, since many are not reported to the authorities.

C Knives are used in other homicides besides those that result from unpremeditated assaults within the family.

D The argument assumes without justification that the knives used to commit homicide are generally purchased as part of a deliberate plan to commit murder or to inflict grievous harm on a family member.

E If the potentially lethal knives referred to are ordinary household knives, such knives were common before the rise in the homicide rate； but if they are weaponry, such knives are not generally available in households.

==> i had a tough choice between D and E

Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lake’s waters have become cleaner. Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again. However, a technology for preventing leaks is being installed. Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless. 28-09
The argument depends on assuming which of the following?

A: Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industrial development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.

B: Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to the lake by the pipeline’s construction

C: There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.

D: Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause.

E: The species of fish that are present in LakeKonfa now are the same as those that were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.

==> i chose C, which is wrong, but as long as the technology is effective, then there needs to be worry about pollution...?

jamesk486 wrote:During the 1980s the homicide rate in Britain rose by 50 percent. The weapon used usually was a knife. Potentially lethal knives arc sold openly and legally in many shops. Most homicide deaths occur as a result of unpremeditated assaults within the family. Even if these are increasing, they would probably not result in deaths if it were not for the prevalence of such knives. Thus the blame lies with the permissiveness of the government that allows such lethal weapons to be sold.

Which one of the following is the strongest criticism of the argument?

A There are other means besides knives, such as guns or poison ,that can be used to accomplish homicide by a person who intends to cause the death of another.

B It is impossible to know how many unpremeditated assaults occur within the family, since many are not reported to the authorities.

C Knives are used in other homicides besides those that result from unpremeditated assaults within the family.

D The argument assumes without justification that the knives used to commit homicide are generally purchased as part of a deliberate plan to commit murder or to inflict grievous harm on a family member.

E If the potentially lethal knives referred to are ordinary household knives, such knives were common before the rise in the homicide rate； but if they are weaponry, such knives are not generally available in households.

==> i had a tough choice between D and E

I'm inclined towards E. The criticism for the argument should target the
availability or prevalence of knives.

D takes the argument a bit far and concentrates on the purpose of
the knives.

E tells us that the knives were either always present in houses or
are generally not available in households. So, the permissiveness of
the Govt to allow such knives to be sold would not help in reducing
the incidence of such deaths.

wrote: Early in the twentieth century, Lake Konfa became very polluted. Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lake’s waters have become cleaner. Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake’s bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again. However, a technology for preventing leaks is being installed. Therefore, provided this technology is effective, those fears are groundless. 28-09
The argument depends on assuming which of the following?

A: Apart from development related to the pipeline, there will be no new industrial development around the lake that will create renewed pollution in its waters.

B: Other than the possibility of a leak, there is no realistic pollution threat posed to the lake by the pipeline’s construction

C: There is no reason to believe that the leak-preventing technology would be ineffective when installed in the pipeline in Lake Konfa.

D: Damage to the lake’s fish populations would be the only harm that a leak of oil from the pipeline would cause.

E: The species of fish that are present in LakeKonfa now are the same as those that were in the lake before it was affected by pollution.

==> i chose C, which is wrong, but as long as the technology is effective, then there needs to be worry about pollution...?

The fear is that fish population will decline as a result of the new pipeline.
However the only mitigating argument given is that the new installation
is leak-proof. We are not told about any of the other factors that could
potentially impact the fish population.

I'm going to go with B. A is close as well.

C tells us that the leak-prevention technology is guaranteed to work
but it doesn't address the primary concern of the passage i.e. the
pollution and hence the decline in fish-population.

OA please.

Conclusion: Installing the technology that prevents oil leakage would eradicate pollution and fish population decline.

Therefore, the assumption here is oil leakage is the only threat to lake pollution and fish population. There would not be any other threats.

You have to negate the answer choice C to see why it is the right answer. if the bottom of the lake contain toxic remnant that will potential cause the pollution to be revived then the fears are very much justified despite the effectiveness of the technology.

Imo D for the first one,

B for the second one.

OA plz

IMO
1. E
2. B

I have never seen a question asking criticism of the argument, most of the time the question is after "criticism against the argument". What is the source of this question?

For question 2 - the answer has to be B. If you negate the assumption the argument falls flat.

Request - Please use spoilers for the answers.

jamesk486 wrote:During the 1980s the homicide rate in Britain rose by 50 percent. The weapon used usually was a knife. Potentially lethal knives arc sold openly and legally in many shops. Most homicide deaths occur as a result of unpremeditated assaults within the family. Even if these are increasing, they would probably not result in deaths if it were not for the prevalence of such knives. Thus the blame lies with the permissiveness of the government that allows such lethal weapons to be sold.

Which one of the following is the strongest criticism of the argument?

==> i had a tough choice between D and E

mehravikas wrote:I have never seen a question asking criticism of the argument, most of the time the question is after "criticism against the argument". What is the source of this question?

For question 2 - the answer has to be B. If you negate the assumption the argument falls flat.

Request - Please use spoilers for the answers.

jamesk486 wrote:During the 1980s the homicide rate in Britain rose by 50 percent. The weapon used usually was a knife. Potentially lethal knives arc sold openly and legally in many shops. Most homicide deaths occur as a result of unpremeditated assaults within the family. Even if these are increasing, they would probably not result in deaths if it were not for the prevalence of such knives. Thus the blame lies with the permissiveness of the government that allows such lethal weapons to be sold.

Which one of the following is the strongest criticism of the argument?

==> i had a tough choice between D and E

for the first one IMO A
for the second one IMO B

Lake Konfa... A was tempting... but B is correct. One need not go beyond the scope of the question...

homicide CR
E

Lake Konfa CR
B