Question

Like most other coastal towns in Norway, the town of Stavanger was quiet and peaceful until the early 1960's, when it became Norway's center for offshore oil exploration. Between then and now, violent crime and vandalism in Stavanger have greatly increased. Stavanger's social problems probably resulted from the oil boom, since violent crime and vandalism have remained low in coastal towns in Norway that have had no oil boom. Which of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning employed in the argument?

• A. Arguing that a circumstance is not a precondition for a phenomenon on the grounds that the phenomenon sometimes occurs where the circumstance is not present.
• B. Arguing that a circumstance is a cause of a phenomenon on the grounds that the phenomenon has not occurred where the circumstance is not present.
• C. Arguing that a particular thing cannot have caused a phenomenon because that thing was not present before the phenomenon occurred.
• D. Attempting to establish a claim by arguing that the denial of the claim is inconsistent with the observed facts.
• E. Attempting to establish that certain circumstances that would have had to occur for a particular explanation to be correct could not have occurred. \textbf

Hint:

Identify causal support via "absence of X implies absence of Y" for positive causation.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: The argument concludes that the oil boom (circumstance) caused increased crime (phenomenon) in Stavanger.
Step 2: Evidence: Crime remained low in other Norwegian coastal towns without an oil boom (phenomenon absent where circumstance absent).
Step 3: This supports causation by showing correlation via absence: no oil boom implies no crime increase.
Step 4: Matches (B); others misalign (e.g., (A) denies precondition, (C) reverses timing).