Critical Reasoning

Antoine: The alarming fact is that among children aged 19 years and younger, the number taking antipsychotic medicines soared 73 percent in the last four years. That is greater than the increase in the number of adults taking antipsychotic medicines during the same period.

Lucy: But the use of antipsychotic drugs by adults is considered normal at the current rate of 11 adults per 1,000 taking the drugs. In contrast, the number of children on antipsychotic medication last year was 6.6 per 1,000 children.

Lucy's argument relies on the assumption that ______.
A normal levels of antipsychotic drug use are rarely exceeded.
B the percentage of adults taking antipsychotic medication is always higher than the percentage of children on such medication.
C the use of antipsychotic medication in children is no different from the use of such medications in adults.
D Antoine is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents.
E a rapid increase in the number of children taking antipsychotic drugs generates more fear of random violence by adolescents than does knowledge of the absolute number of children on such medications.

OA - C

Can someone explain the logic behind the OA ?

Lucy assumes that the drug's effect on Adults and children is the same when she is comparing the numbers.
It may be possible that the drug has unintended effects on children....

you need to pay attention to premise and counter premise indicators here.
Look at Antoine's conclusion: the increase in the number of children taking antipsychotic drugs is greater than the increase in the number of adults taking the drugs.

Lucy starts with a 'but'. 'But' is a counter premise indicator. she goes on to say that 11 adults per 1000 is considered normal whereas 6.6 per 1000 children is considered normal. so in any case if the number of children on drugs is equal to adults, it would still be greater than the normal ratio of adults.

Lets look at options:

A normal levels of antipsychotic drug use are rarely exceeded. [whether normal levels are rarely exceeded or generally exceeded in not the topic of interest in the stimulus. Eliminated!]

B the percentage of adults taking antipsychotic medication is always higher than the percentage of children on such medication. [this is reverse to what the stimulus is proving. the stimulus says the percentage of children is higher and lucy's statement provides to show that this is not the case. Eliminated!]

C the use of antipsychotic medication in children is no different from the use of such medications in adults.[perfectly fits our line of reasoning. Correct!]

D Antoine is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents. [Lucy does not attack Antoine's line of reasoning. She accepts Antoine's data but validates it in a different way. Eliminated!]

E a rapid increase in the number of children taking antipsychotic drugs generates more fear of random violence by adolescents than does knowledge of the absolute number of children on such medications. [completely out of scope. Eliminated!]

Hope this helps!

In addition with the replied posts, as the country's spending budget battle has proven, the U.S. government has fought to keep up satisfactory resources for veterans' affairs including the cure for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Add to this the fact that some crucial medications do not work, as reported by a brand new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association. As reported by the study, the most widely prescribed PTSD narcotics are no more useful than placebos at treating the illness, yet still have significant side effects like weight gain and fatigue. Here is the proof: Antipsychotics fail to alleviate PTSD symptoms in veterans. You must check this out for you to wipe away your curiosity.

hk_4u wrote: OA - C

Can someone explain the logic behind the OA ?

So what's happening here is Antoine is trying to show that it is alarming to see an increased use of xyz medicine in children. While Lucy says do not be alarmed as (important part starts now) 11 adults per 1000 is normal in adults and 6.6 adults per 1000 is normal in kids, basically Lucy is keeping adults and children on the same balance when making such a comparison, if this was not true, and adult and children had different kinds of use of medication then her argument could be completely rejected. Hence answer C provides the most important assumption which should be true in order for Lucy's argument to be true.

Ans is A

Negation technique works here ie negating the assumption should weaken conclusion.

A' : normal levels of anti-psychotic drug use are often exceeded. : so what? we are concerned with the comparison between the usage of drugs among adults and the usage of drugs among children.

B' : the percentage of adults taking anti-psychotic medication is not always higher than the percentage of children on such medication. : So what? Lucy uses information about 'adult use' to imply that the lower rate of anti-psychotic drug use in children must also be normal. The negation of B does not weaken the conclusion.

C' : the use of anti-psychotic medication in children is different from the use of such medications in adults. : Lucy cant compare drug usage of two different groups of people. This weakens the conclusion.

D' : Antoine is consciously distorting the statistics he presents. : Lucy argument is not weakened by the inaccuracy of Antoines arguments.

E' : a rapid increase in the number of children taking anti-psychotic drugs generates less fear of
random violence by adolescents than does knowledge of the absolute number of children on such
medications. : Does not weaken the conclusion since irrelevant.

Hope this helps.