difference of opinion in answer choice

[speedupgmat]

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


I was thinking B would be a better option but the answer is D. How?

[rppala90]

The question is to weaken the conclusion.
So the answer should support that it is dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces than to stay at home as civilian.

option D is the answer because it compares the ratio of ((1000 * death rate in armed forces) / total number of people in armed forces) to ((1000 * death rate in civilians) / total number of civilians in united states).

The numerators here are almost same from the question.
Denominator of civilians will be very high compared to armed forces denominator.
Which results in higher value for armed forces ratio and hence it weakens the conclusion clearly.

[XLogic]

The question is to weaken the conclusion.
So the answer should support that it is dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces than to stay at home as civilian.

option D is the answer because it compares the ratio of ((1000 * death rate in armed forces) / total number of people in armed forces) to ((1000 * death rate in civilians) / total number of civilians in united states).

The numerators here are almost same from the question.
Denominator of civilians will be very high compared to armed forces denominator.
Which results in higher value for armed forces ratio and hence it weakens the conclusion clearly.

Nice analysis. I thought of this questions as "Which answer choice will help us identify the FLAW in this argument?".

Assumption: The author assumed that because the number of deaths in both groups was relatively close, that the likelihood of deaths in both groups was also relatively close.

Flaw: The author failed to consider that the total number of civilians was much larger than the total number of soldiers in the armed forces.

Resolution: the author should compare the death rates (# dead and total) of both groups, not just the number of deaths.

As pointed out earlier, (D) Helps us make this comparison:

For example,
> Civilian death rate (300 K / 200 million) to Soldier death rate (400 K / 10 million)
> .015% to 4%