91Ó°ÊÓ

The "suicide wave" that followed the United States stock market crash of October 1929 is more legend than fact. Careful examination of the monthly fugures on the causes of death in 1929 show that the number of suicides in October and in November was comparatively low. In only three other months were the monthly figures lower. During the summer months, when the stock market was flourishing, the number of suicides was substantially higher. Which one of the following, if true, would best challenge the conclusion of the passage? (A) The suicide rate is influenced by many psychological, interpersonal, and socictal factors during any given historical period. (B) October and November have almost always had relatively high suicide rates, even during the 1920 s and 1930 s. (C) The suicide rate in October and November of 1929 was considerably higher than the average for those months during several preceding and following years. (D) During the years surrounding the stock market crash, suicide rates were typically lower at the beginning of any calendar year than toward the end of that year. (E) Because of seasonal differences, the number of suicides in October and November of 1929 would not be expected to be the same as those for other months.

Step by step solution

01

Understanding the Argument's Conclusion

The passage concludes that the idea of a 'suicide wave' following the October 1929 stock market crash is more myth than reality. This conclusion is based on the observation that suicide rates in October and November 1929 were low compared to other months, even lower than in three other months, contradicting the rocketing suicide legend.

02

Identifying What Challenges the Conclusion

To challenge the conclusion, any evidence presented must suggest that there was indeed an increase in suicides attributable to the stock market crash of 1929, particularly during October and November.

03

Evaluating Option (C)

Option (C) states that the suicide rate in October and November of 1929 was considerably higher than the average for those months during several preceding and following years. This contradicts the conclusion as it indicates an anomaly during the months of interest, suggesting an unexpected rise in suicides at the time of the crash.

04

Considering Other Options

Other options such as (A) and (E) provide general information insufficient to challenge the specific historical claim. Options (B) and (D) provide contextual information on patterns but do not directly refute an unusual occurrence in October and November 1929.

05

Selecting the Best Challenge

Option (C) directly addresses the passage's claim by indicating that the months in question were unusual in terms of suicide rates compared to similar periods. Thus, (C) best challenges the idea that the 'suicide wave' is a myth.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

• Full Textbook Solutions

  Get detailed explanations and key concepts

• Unlimited Al creation

  Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

• Ads-free access

  To over 500 millions flashcards

• Money-back guarantee

  We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally, understanding the logical connection between ideas. It involves being able to process and evaluate information without bias.

In the context of the LSAT logical reasoning problem, critical thinking helps you to:

• Question assumptions and identify what the argument is truly stating.
• Separate fact from opinion and identify any underlying assumptions that may guide your acceptance or rejection of the argument.
• Analyze the evidence provided to see if it truly supports the conclusion.

Critical thinking is essential for picking apart arguments and understanding their components, thereby allowing for more informed decisions. It empowers you to not just accept arguments at face value, but to delve deeper and challenge ideas with precision.

Argument Analysis

Argument analysis involves breaking down a statement to understand its components and assess its validity. To effectively analyze arguments, you need to engage in identifying the premises and the conclusion.

In the exercise, we see a conclusion: that the "suicide wave" was more myth than fact. The premises were the observed suicide rates in specific months. During argument analysis:

• Distinguish between the main argument and supporting evidence. The exercise requires identifying the passage's central point and its supporting data about suicide rates.
• Sift through given data to determine its relevance in supporting or refuting the conclusion. See how the data stands in its context.
• Look for any additional information or data that might influence the argument, like in Option (C), where contrary evidence can change the interpretation.

Argument analysis is crucial for understanding the strength and weaknesses of arguments, paving the way for more solid reasoning.

Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of your argument. They often appear as seemingly valid arguments, but they fail under scrutiny.

In terms of this exercise, becoming familiar with logical fallacies allows you to:

• Identify any misleading reasoning patterns present in the argument. For instance, assuming a direct causal relationship between stock market events and suicide rates without compelling evidence can be a post hoc fallacy.
• Recognize weak evidence or irrelevant factors that could distract from the main argument, leading to erroneous conclusions.
• Avoid being swayed by emotional appeals or skewed interpretations of data, as seen with the "legend" of increased suicides post-crash.

Being alert to logical fallacies helps refine your argument critique, ensuring that you view arguments objectively and spot flaws with ease.

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning is a process of reasoning from one or more statements to reach a logically certain conclusion. It's about drawing specific conclusions from general premises.

In the context of the given LSAT problem, deductive reasoning plays a role in:

• Evaluating statements to deduce whether conclusions in the passage follow logically from the premises. Knowing that turkey tends to increase suicide rates in certain months, you can deduce if historical data supports or undermines that.
• Using established facts to assess whether the argument's claims hold up upon close examination, such as checking the factual monthly comparisons of suicide rates.
• Recognizing that without absolute proof from the evidence, the stated conclusion cannot be fully accepted or trusted through deduction alone.

Through deductive reasoning, one can confirm the structure and validity of the argument, further testing if the conclusions drawn are indeed inevitable derivations from the presented facts.