udaymathapati wrote:
16. During the Second World War, about 375,000 civilians died in the United States and about 408,000 members
of the United States armed forces died overseas. On the basis the those figures, it can be concluded that it was
not much more dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces during the Second World War than it was to stay
at home as a civilian.
Which of the following would reveal most clearly the absurdity of the conclusion drawn above?
A. Counting deaths among members of the armed forces who served in the United State in addition to deaths
among members of the armed forces serving overseas
B. Expressing the difference between the numbers of deaths among civilians and members of the armed
forces as a percentage of the total number of deaths
C. Separating deaths caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat
injuries
D. Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths
E. Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed
forces
Can somebody explain the D in detail. I am not getting how we are getting higher death rates for smaller groups?
"D exposes this absurdity by pointing out the need to compare death rates of the two groups, which would reveal the higher death rate for the smaller group."
Clean D
Supposre the population of civilians is US is 3 Million
out these 375,000 died = ~19%
and armed forces population is 8,00,000
out of these 4,08,000 dies = 51%
so the conclusion "it was
not much more dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces during the Second World War than it was to stay
at home as a civilian." fails
hope this clears