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:
In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent [#permalink]
08 Nov 2006, 20:31
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 personsâ€”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.
The best answer could have been "strict gun-control laws were implemented in states which had high violent crime rate"
A seems to be answer now. The argument says that the violent crime rate has come down since the laws were implemented. If the laws are repealed, then this might increase the crime rate in the states with strict gun-control laws.
E can't be the answer, because there is no information on what proportion of individuals own guns in states with strict gun-control laws.
The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.