Now, we take up the next question:
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends? - We need to find out the assumption.
(A) Urban pollution has not doubled in the past decade. - Even if urban pollution has doubled, how does that impact the conclusion? I am relying on data that says that even in cities with no urban pollution, the death rate has risen dramatically. So, even if urban pollution doubled, it will not mean that urban pollution is the cause of increased deaths because I have already countered this in the argument. Therefore, this statement is not the required assumption.
(B) Doctors and patients generally ignore the role of allergies in asthma. - Can you see what this option is doing? It is introducing one more factor which can explain the increased deaths. If we have one more possible cause, then our conclusion is weakened. We know that an assumption cannot weaken the conclusion; rather an assumption always supports the conclusion. Therefore, without further do, we can kick this option statement out.
(C) Bronchial inhalers are unsafe, even when used according to the recommended instructions. - My first impression is that this statement supports the conclusion. However, is it absolutely necessary for the conclusion to hold true? The answer is No. Bronchial inhalers can be safe when used according to recommended instructions. Such a case won't break down the conclusion. Probably, they are safe when used according to the instructions but a large number of people don't use according to the instructions. So, we have a case where the negation of the statement and the conclusion both will hold true. Therefore, the statement is not absolutely required for the conclusion to hold true. Therefore, this statement is incorrect.
(D) The use of bronchial inhalers aggravates other diseases that frequently occur among asthma sufferers and that often lead to fatal outcomes even when the asthma itself does not. - This statement, like option C, supports the conclusion; however, this statement also is not absolutely required for the conclusion to hold true. Even if the use of inhalers doesn't aggravate other diseases, it does not mean that inhalers are not the cause of increased deaths. Probably, the inhalers themselves are capable of causing deaths that they don't require help from other diseases![:wink:]( "Wink")
So, this option statement is also not required assumption and hence incorrect.
(E) Increased urban pollution, improved recording of asthma deaths, and the use of bronchial inhalers are the only possible explanations of the increased death rate due to asthma. - This is the answer because we have already rejected four option statements and this is the last one, so we must select this. Just joking!
To understand why this is required assumption, we need to look at how the conclusion was derived. The conclusion was derived by saying that since A and B are not the possible reason, C is the cause of increased deaths. Do you understand this? If not, look back at the passage analysis.
So, we inherently assumed that only A, B and C are the reasons. If that is not the assumption and we thought D is also possible, then conclusion should have been: Since A and B are not the reasons, either C or D is the cause of increased deaths.
But that is not what we concluded. We concluded that C is the cause of increased deaths. So, we assumed that only three given reasons are possible.
I hope this helps![:)]( "Smile")
Thanks,
Chiranjeev
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends? - We need to find out the assumption.
(A) Urban pollution has not doubled in the past decade. - Even if urban pollution has doubled, how does that impact the conclusion? I am relying on data that says that even in cities with no urban pollution, the death rate has risen dramatically. So, even if urban pollution doubled, it will not mean that urban pollution is the cause of increased deaths because I have already countered this in the argument. Therefore, this statement is not the required assumption.
(B) Doctors and patients generally ignore the role of allergies in asthma. - Can you see what this option is doing? It is introducing one more factor which can explain the increased deaths. If we have one more possible cause, then our conclusion is weakened. We know that an assumption cannot weaken the conclusion; rather an assumption always supports the conclusion. Therefore, without further do, we can kick this option statement out.
(C) Bronchial inhalers are unsafe, even when used according to the recommended instructions. - My first impression is that this statement supports the conclusion. However, is it absolutely necessary for the conclusion to hold true? The answer is No. Bronchial inhalers can be safe when used according to recommended instructions. Such a case won't break down the conclusion. Probably, they are safe when used according to the instructions but a large number of people don't use according to the instructions. So, we have a case where the negation of the statement and the conclusion both will hold true. Therefore, the statement is not absolutely required for the conclusion to hold true. Therefore, this statement is incorrect.
(D) The use of bronchial inhalers aggravates other diseases that frequently occur among asthma sufferers and that often lead to fatal outcomes even when the asthma itself does not. - This statement, like option C, supports the conclusion; however, this statement also is not absolutely required for the conclusion to hold true. Even if the use of inhalers doesn't aggravate other diseases, it does not mean that inhalers are not the cause of increased deaths. Probably, the inhalers themselves are capable of causing deaths that they don't require help from other diseases
So, this option statement is also not required assumption and hence incorrect.(E) Increased urban pollution, improved recording of asthma deaths, and the use of bronchial inhalers are the only possible explanations of the increased death rate due to asthma. - This is the answer because we have already rejected four option statements and this is the last one, so we must select this. Just joking!
To understand why this is required assumption, we need to look at how the conclusion was derived. The conclusion was derived by saying that since A and B are not the possible reason, C is the cause of increased deaths. Do you understand this? If not, look back at the passage analysis.
So, we inherently assumed that only A, B and C are the reasons. If that is not the assumption and we thought D is also possible, then conclusion should have been: Since A and B are not the reasons, either C or D is the cause of increased deaths.
But that is not what we concluded. We concluded that C is the cause of increased deaths. So, we assumed that only three given reasons are possible.
I hope this helps
Thanks,
Chiranjeev