|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2004
Posts: 121
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent [#permalink]
 13 Jul 2005, 17:00
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws was 645 crimes per 100,000 persons—about 50 percent higher than the average rate in the eleven states where strict gun-control laws have never been passed. Thus one way to reduce violent crime is to repeal strict gun control laws.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
(A) The annual rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws has decreased since the passage of those laws.
(B) In states with strict gun-control laws, few individuals are prosecuted for violating such laws.
(C) In states without strict gun-control laws, many individuals have had no formal training in the use of firearms.
(D) The annual rate of nonviolent crime is lower in states with strict gun-control laws than in states without such laws.
(E) Less than half of the individuals who reside in states without strict gun-control laws own a gun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 1089
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
A
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1745
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR - Gun Control Law [#permalink]
13 Jul 2005, 18:21
A is best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2004
Posts: 121
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR - Gun Control Law [#permalink]
13 Jul 2005, 18:45
OA is A. Could you please explain why B is wrong? If Gun control is not strictly enforced the problem is not with the gun control law but rather with the enforcement of it. So we should not do away with the law instead enforce is better.
thanks
damit wrote: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws was 645 crimes per 100,000 persons—about 50 percent higher than the average rate in the eleven states where strict gun-control laws have never been passed. Thus one way to reduce violent crime is to repeal strict gun control laws.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
(A) The annual rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws has decreased since the passage of those laws.
(B) In states with strict gun-control laws, few individuals are prosecuted for violating such laws.
(C) In states without strict gun-control laws, many individuals have had no formal training in the use of firearms.
(D) The annual rate of nonviolent crime is lower in states with strict gun-control laws than in states without such laws.
(E) Less than half of the individuals who reside in states without strict gun-control laws own a gun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 379
Location: India
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
B supports the argument in saying that when no person in prosecuted there is no point having gun control laws.
Hence A - although the rate of crime is more that other non-control states it has reduced the incidence of crime.
HMTG..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Posts: 356
Location: USA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
The answer is Clearly A.
Damit, B states - "In states with strict gun-control laws, few individuals are prosecuted for violating such laws.", which means that many violators of the strict gun laws go scot free, which in turn strengthens the author's conclusion. The argument requires an answer choice that weakens the conclusion.
A states that the law has helped bring down the crime rate, thus weakening the author's claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
