Critical Reasoning

During the Second World War, about 375,000 civilians died in the United States and about 408,000 members
of the United States armed forces died overseas. On the basis the those figures, it can be concluded that it was
not much more dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces during the Second World War than it was to stay
at home as a civilian.
Which of the following would reveal most clearly the absurdity of the conclusion drawn above?
A. Counting deaths among members of the armed forces who served in the United State in addition to deaths
among members of the armed forces serving 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
C. Separating deaths caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat
injuries
D. Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths
E. Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed
forces


My question is should the assumption not actaully be that
the comparison is incorrect here should we not compare the reason of death
1) Death caused by accidents
2) Death caused by combat

so should E not be the answer why is ths D

I think D is obvious.
We are looking at number of deaths in US and overseas and concluding that as numbers don't differ much, it isn't much dangerous to be overseas.
D) per thousand numbers is same as %. if we see % of deaths in US compared to % of deaths overseas, its pretty clear that it will be less.
E) it doesn;t matter how deaths were caused.

It will be outrightly D. Explanation: We really dont care that how did the death happen and how much.

We want to know the ratio in case to understand that out of the sommiliar proportion, how much death happened in each area. (Apple to apple)

Imiagine that US army has 100,000 Armymen and 101 dies and other place had 150 but 90 died.Thus we can not really compare it without bringing population on the same platform.

hope this explains.

Why not B friends?

D is obvious.

B doesn't make any sense. It says, difference between death of civilians and armed forces as a percentage of total deaths. Difference of deaths wont give us anything.