Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
The answer is "B"..Reason as follows in the trail...
Quote: Citizens of parktown are worried by the increased frequency of serious crimes committed by local teenagers. In response, the city government has instituted a series of measures designed to keep teenagers at home in the late evening. Even if the measures succeed in keeping teenagers at home, however, they are unlikely to affect the problem that concerns citizens, since most crimes committed by local teenagers take place between 3pm and 6pm
a)Similar measures adopted in other place have failed to reduce the no of teenagers in the late evening...Insufficient ,what kind of measures not elaborated between 3 pm and 6pm?..Incorrect
b)Crimes committed by teenagers in afternoon are mostly small thefts and inconsequential ...At least the Best argument making sense during the time frame 3pm to 6 pm
c)teenagers are much less likely to commit serious crimes when they are at home than when they are not at home..No relevance ...substatiate data unavailable to proove this.
d)Any decrease in the need for police patrols in late evening would not mean that there could be more intensive patrolling in the afternoon ..Police patrolling or roles is not the subject of the statement and is completely irrelevant.
e)The schools in parktown have introduced a number of after school programs that will be available to teenagers until 6pm on weekday afternoons...Specific mention of "weekdays" makes it a no go...had the term "weekdays" not been included this would have been the undisputed and best option among the 5...
Conclusion: they are unlikely to affect the problem that concerns citizens, since most crimes committed by local teenagers take place between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m.
Reasoning: The incorrect answers are ones that strengthen the answer choices or others that are neutral. Weakening the conclusion must attack the conclusion so as to prove that it's not likely crimes are committed between 3 pm to 6 pm (with the series of measures instituted)
A. Similar measure adopted in other places have failed to reduce the number of teenagers on the streets in the late evening Wrong - opposite answer; we need why the measures work. It's certainly a trap answer.
B. The crimes committed by teenagers in the afternoon are mostly small thefts and inconsequential vandalism. Correct - "serious" modifies the crimes, whereas the "small" and "inconsequential" modify most of the crimes that occur from 3pm to 6pm.
C. Teenagers are much less likely to commit serious crimes when they are at home than when they are not at home. Wrong - Neutral. Indeed teenagers can't commit serious crimes when they are at home.
D. Any decrease in the need for police patrols in the late evening would not mean that there could be more intensive patrolling in the afternoon. Wrong - opposite answer. This is opposite because the answer must weaken the conclusion that the measures are likely to succeed.
E. The schools in Parktown have introduced a number of after-school programs that will be available to teenagers until 6 p.m. on weekday afternoons. [color=#ed1c24]Wrong - this does not properly weaken the conclusion because we don't know if the teenagers will attend /color]
Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).
Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
I think the major problem for me here is that I do not understand what the actual argument is. It seems to me the final argument states that the government effort to reduce serious teenage crime will proof ineffective due to the fact that the majority of the crimes are commited during 3pm and 6pm, but it does NOT state the nature of these crimes (serious or not).
Now if I look at the correct answer, which states that crimes comitted during the evening are NOT SERIOUS crimes, Does that not mean that the government effort will proof ineffective, since serious crimes are NOT observed in the evening, and isn't the argument with which the passage ends strengthened by this statement????
Here's how I would answer this weaken the argument question: First, Summarize the main point - Increase in serious crimes by teens therefore current plan is to keep teens indoors at night. Second, State the assumption -Most Serious crimes happen between 3pm and 6pm only/daytime Goal - Destroy the assumption
Option A: Out of scope - similar measures adopted in other places is irrelevant to this argument Option B: Correct - The crimes committed by teenagers in the afternoon are mostly small thefts and inconsequential vandalism - This destroys the assumption that most serious crimes are committed between 3pm and 6pm or daytime only. Option C: Out of scope - Redundant information and also no mention of the actual time of day Option D: Completely Out of scope Option E: Warp answer - Kind of addresses a part of the argument but not fully because it only takes the weekdays into account
Hope this makes sense
Re: GMAT PREP (CR)
26 May 2015, 16:12