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:
Ignoring minor crimes such as littering and vandalism [#permalink]
11 Jul 2011, 12:28
17% (00:00) correct
83% (01:48) wrong based on 8 sessions
Ignoring minor crimes such as littering and vandalism promotes a general air of lawlessness that fosters more serious crime. In addition, when people who commit these crimes are arrested, they are often found to have outstanding warrants for more serious offenses. Over the last 5 years, the Macropolis police department prosecuted these minor crimes that were previously ignored in order to reduce serious crime. For each of those 5 years, serious crime has declined in the city, a clear indication that the policy is working.
Which of the following, if true, would be LEAST likely to be used to dispute the Chief of Police's claims?
Some other cities have implemented an identical program without a corresponding drop in serious crime. Illegal drug use — which is associated with high levels of serious crime — has fallen dramatically in Macropolis. Most serious criminals are young men, and the proportion of young men in the population has risen. A general upturn in Macropolis's economy has led to large decreases in unemployment, which in the past has led to reductions in serious crime. Harsher sentencing policies introduced into the state 10 years ago mean that many career criminals are currently serving long jail sentences.
How can B dispute the claim? Please explain your answers.
Read the question carefully, Which of the following, if true, would be LEAST likely to be used to dispute.
A : Evidence that same theory was successful in different cities : supports the claim B : Supports the claim C : Least likely to be used to dispute D : more employment less crime. Supports the claim. E : Supports the claim
The first step with Critical Reasoning questions is always to read the question and determine what the question is really asking. In this case, the question is written in a purposefully confusing way:
"Which of the following, if true, would be LEAST likely to be used to dispute the Chief of Police's claims?"
As you read this and think about the major types of CR questions (strengthen, weaken, ID the underlying assumption, and draw a conclusion), you should notice this question is about weakening the argument. It's really asking you which answer choice weakens the conclusion the least. The conclusion is that prosecuting people for small crimes leads to decreased crime overall).
Once you rephrase this into an easier to comprehend question type, take a look at the answers:
A would weaken or be irrelevant to the Chief's claim...it says that this hasn't worked in other cities. B would weaken the conclusion by providing an alternate explanation for decreased crime. C - If this were true, the crime rate should have actually gone up, which would actually strengthen the argument. D would weaken the conclusion by providing an alternate explanation for decreased crime. E would weaken the conclusion by providing an alternate explanation for decreased crime.
The one that weakens the arguments the least is C, as C actually strengthens the argument.