During the 1980s the homicide rate in Britain

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Weak18% picked this

   There are other means besides knives, such as guns or poison, that can be used to accomplish homicide by a person who intends

   This isn't a super strong objection: hey, author, if it hadn't been for knives, these (unpremeditated) crimes of passion that happened within a family would have happened anyway with guns or poison or other lethal methods. The phrase 'a person who intends to cause the death of another' makes the objection a little out of scope. Unpremeditated family violence is not one person intending to cause the death of another. It's someone reaching a breaking point and lashing out violently and often accidentally or regretfully causing the death of another. Not to mention, common sense tells us that the average household is more likely to have a knife than to have a gun or poison.

   18%
2. B

   Irrelevant1% picked this

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

   We don't need to know the exact number of unpremeditated assaults. We know the reported number went up by 50% and this answer doesn't help us make any sort of objection that sounds like "don't blame knives ... had they been illegal, that wouldn't have changed much".

   1%
3. C

   Strengthens, if Anything2% picked this

   Knives are used in other homicides besides those that result from unpremeditated assaults

   Telling us that knives are used in other murders, too, is only helping the author's case that the government should have done something about knives.

   2%
4. D

   Not Assumed23% picked this

   The argument assumes without justification that the knives used to commit homicide are generally purchased as part of a deliberate plan to commit murder

   The author seems to be thinking the opposite of this. She's thinking that people buy legal knives and have them in their house (probably for cooking) and then use them when they're suddenly wanting to hurt someone in their family. Since she's targeting unpremeditated homicides, the idea that these knives were part of a deliberate plan goes squarely against the story we heard.

   23%
5. E

   Correct56% picked this

   If the potentially lethal knives referred to are ordinary household knives, such knives were common before the rise in the homicide rate; but if

   Why this is right

   This hurts the plausibility of the author's causal story. If they're ordinary cooking/eating knives, then they existed prior to the homicide rate. (Cause, No Effect plausibility weakener) How could these knives be the causal difference-maker that explains the uptick in homicides in the 1980s if these knives weren't different? (i.e. people already had them in the 1970s) If they're knives designed as weapons, then you wouldn't find them in most houses (No Cause, Effect plausibility weakener). How could these weaponized knives be the causal difference-maker that explains all these unpremeditated family homicides if these knives weren't found within households? An unpremeditated assault means that it just happens, with whatever's nearby. If you leave the house to procure a weapon, it's not unpremeditated anymore.

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   56%