14101992
sayantanc2kShouldn't the answer be C.
C. There were few cases of drowning in Juhu beach in the month of August this year.
If this is true, than
increase of tourists in Juhu beach is directly related to the epidemic in Marine beach can be proved wrong. The drowning in Juhu should also cause decrease in the number of tourists in Juhu beach, but as per the argument it is not the case.
Your point, if I have correctly understood, is that, drowning in Juhu should cause decrease in the number of visitors to Juhu beach, but it has not; rather visitors to Juhu has increased. How does it prove, or at least support, that the increase is NOT attributed to epidemic at marine beach?
Let us say:
X = epidemic in Marine beach
Z = increase in the number of visitors to Juhu beach
Z' = decrease in the number of visitors to Juhu beach
Y = drowning at Juhu beach
Conclusion: X causes Z. In order to weaken this conclusion, we need any of the following 2 statements:
§1. Y causes Z
OR
§2. Z causes X
(Now §2 is not the logic used here, §1 is.)
From option C, we can conclude that Y has not caused Z'.
However,
Y has not caused Z' is NOT equivalent to
Y caused Z.
Thus C is not the right answer.