Q1 - Our city's campaign to

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Yuriko commits what is called the post hoc ergo propter hog fallacy , i.e., because A precedes B, A cause B.

Yuriko:

Premise: In the 16 months following the enactment of legislation approving the campaign vaccinations have gone up by 30 percent.
Conclusion: Susan's city should imitate Yuriko's campaign that persuades parents to have their children vaccinated in her city.

Assumptions made by Yuriko: The campaign was executed within the 16 months of it's approval.
There is no alternative explanation for the percipitous increase in vaccines.


Susan undermines an assumption made by Yuriko that there exists no alternative explanation for the increase in vaccinations. She points out that the major part of vaccinations occurred 6 months after the enactment of legislation approving it when the campaign barely started as well as right after the city's free neighbourhood clinic opened, thus insinuating that the latter could be the real reason for the increase and not the former.


(A) She doesn't do this.
(B) Bingo
(C) The evidence she offers does is not used nor does it demonstrate that vaccination campaign is only effective for a short period of time. In fact she's attempting to undermine yuriko's assumption that the increase in vaccinations was even attributable to the campaign.
(D) She makes no claim as to how necessary the campaign is.
(E) Her claim does not show that all such campaigns are ineffective, but rather that it was not necessarily responsible for the increase in vaccinations.

[maryadkins]

Great explanation, thanks for posting it!

My only tweak would be to (E). She makes no claim that "most" campaigns are ineffective, I think you mean, since the word used is "usually" (instead of "all").