Question

Adelle: The government's program to reduce the unemployment rate in the province of Carthena by encouraging job creation has failed, since the rate there has not changed appreciably since the program began a year ago.
Fran: But the unemployment rate in Carthena had been rising for three years before the program began, so the program is helping.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly counters Fran's objection to Adelle's argument?

• A. The government is advised by expert economists, some of whom specialize in employment issues.
• B. The unemployment rate in the province of Carthena has historically been higher than that of the country as a whole.
• C. The current government was elected by a wide margin, because of its promises to reduce the unemployment rate in Carthena.
• D. Around the time the government program began, large numbers of unemployed Carthena residents began leaving the province to look for work elsewhere.
• E. The unemployment rate in Carthena had been relatively stable until shortly before the current government took office.

Hint:

When asked to weaken a causal argument (i.e., "X caused Y"), the most effective strategy is often to present a plausible alternative cause for the effect Y. Here, Fran argues "Program (X) caused stabilization (Y)." Option (D) counters by suggesting "Migration (Z) caused stabilization (Y)."

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question asks us to weaken a specific argument, which is Fran's rebuttal. We need to find the option that most effectively counters Fran's reasoning.
\begin{itemize} \item Adelle's argument: Program failed because the unemployment rate is unchanged. \item Fran's argument (rebuttal): Program is helping because it stopped the previously rising unemployment rate. \end{itemize} Fran's logic is that stopping a negative trend (rising unemployment) is a form of success. She attributes this change in trend to the government's program. To counter Fran, we need to show that something else could have caused the unemployment rate to stop rising.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Let's analyze the options to see which one provides a strong alternative cause for the stabilization of the unemployment rate:
\begin{itemize} \item (A) The quality of the government's advisors is irrelevant to the actual effect of the program. An argument must be judged on its results, not the credentials of those who designed it. \item (B) The historical context of Carthena's unemployment rate compared to the national rate does not explain the recent change from a rising trend to a stable one. \item (C) The government's electoral success and promises are political facts, not economic ones. They don't explain what caused the unemployment rate to stabilize. \item (D) This provides a powerful alternative explanation. The unemployment rate is a fraction: (Number of Unemployed People) / (Total Labor Force). If a large number of unemployed people leave Carthena, they are removed from both the numerator and the denominator of this calculation for the province. This exodus would directly cause the unemployment rate to stabilize or even decrease, entirely independent of any job creation program. This directly undermines Fran's claim that the program was the cause of the stabilization. \item (E) This statement actually seems to support Fran's point. It highlights that the situation was getting worse right before the program started, making the subsequent stabilization look like a significant achievement, which Fran attributes to the program. \end{itemize} Step 3: Final Answer:
Option (D) provides a confounding variable. It suggests that the observed effect (stabilization of the unemployment rate) was not caused by the program (as Fran claims), but by the migration of unemployed workers out of the province. This most strongly counters Fran's argument.