13. 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.


my reasoning not to select E is that if a person owns a gun, it doesn't mean that he/she may comit a crime..
please correct me if i am wrong..By the way, i narrowed down to A and E and then i applied the above reasoning to select A as the answer..

This is a very tricky question, although it's a classical type of weakening.

I think B

Once again, classical weaken type question: cause --> effect. So, if it requires weaken, we should show that even when cause occurs, effect won't occur

cause: repeal strict gun laws
effect: reduce violent crimes

In B: In states with strict gun laws, few people will likely to violate such laws --> it means that because now few people violate the laws, the high rates of violent crime is not caused by adopting such laws --> so even when such laws is repealed, such action has no effect in reducing violent crimes -->weaken

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 --> if it is, it does not weaken the argument, because it's not in the scope mentioned in the argument
(C) In states without strict gun-control laws, many individuals have had no formal training in the use of firearms --> no influence
(D) The annual rate of nonviolent crime is lower in states with strict gun-control laws than in states without such laws --> irrelevant
(E) Less than half of the individuals who reside in states without strict gun-control laws own a gun -->strengthen

Guys, OA is A. I asked this question so as to confirm that i've used the correct reasoning..

Misleading!

A says that repealing the strict gun control laws is not nesscessary to reduce the crime rate. In the states with strict gun -control laws, The annual rate of violent crime has decreased since the passage of those laws
_________________

Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates

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.

Conclusion

To reduce violent crime is to repeal the gun laws.

Premise
the crime rate in the state /w the laws > the crime rate in the state /wo the laws

To weaken the conclusion, there muse be the other main reason to have the state /w the laws higher crime rate.

A weakens the argument by saying that the crime rate in the state /w the laws were already high and decreased since the passage of the law.

I initially thought about C because

the people in the state /wo the laws had no formal training -> the reason why the crime rate is low?
However, to validate that logical predication, I need to assume that the people in the state /w the laws already had been trained to use the gun.
Because I can't find the proof of that assumption, C can't be the answer.
_________________

Luck is the additional surplus on the way to one's constant effort.