The correct answer - option D.
Let us see why.
Conclusion: It was not much more dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces, than it was to stay at home as a civilian
Author's logic:
1. Total #Deaths
- Civilians in the US: 375k
- Armed forces overseas: 408k
Not much of a difference in terms of total deaths.
Flaw in the author's argument:
When will the above statistic not be indicative that being a civilian in the US was almost equally at risk of death/unsafe as a armed forces person overseas?
What if a significantly higher proportion of civilians in the US survived rather than died, and a significantly more number of armed forces overseas died rather than survived.
Example:
# Civilians in US = 10000k
# Civilian in US Deaths = 375k
Death Rate (% deaths for civilians) = 3.75% say 4%
i.e. 4% of civilians in the US actually died due to WW2
# Armed forces persons overseas = 500k
# Armed forces overseas deaths = 408k
Death rate (% deaths for Armed forces persons overseas) = 408/500 = 82%
i.e. 82% of armed forces people overseas in WW2 died due to the War
if only 4% of civilians died due to WW2 (or 40 out of every 1000), but 82% of armed forces died due to WW2 (or 820 out of every 1000), can the author still say that it was not much dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces than it was to stay at home as a civilian?
This is the logic behind option D, which compares death rates per 1000 members. This data would clearly reveal the absurdity of the author's argument.
(A) Counting deaths among members of the armed forces who served in the United States in addition to deaths among members of the armed forces serving overseas
The argument is a comparison between armed forces and civilians. Data about armed forces in the US will not help find the flaw in the incorrect comparison made by the author (flaw in author's argument).
(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
Also does not help.
Say there were a total of 1000k deaths in the war
Option B simply means express the difference in deaths as a %. This would give us 375k/1000k *100 = 37.5, and 40.8%. how does this data help us find the flaw?
(C) Separating deaths caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat injuries
Cause of death is irrelevant in this argument
(D) Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths
As discussed above, this is the correct answer
(E) Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed forces
The argument is a comparison between armed forces and civilians. Data about deaths caused by accidents in the US vs deaths caused by combat in the US does not help us find the flaw in the incorrect comparison made by the author (flaw in author's argument).
Hope this helps.
_________________