Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 30 Aug 2014, 12:23

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 94
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 8 [1] , given: 2

In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent [#permalink] New post 22 May 2009, 05:13
1
This post received
KUDOS
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

80% (02:24) correct 20% (00:03) wrong based on 14 sessions
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..
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1941
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 275 [0], given: 1

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: 1000 cr [#permalink] New post 22 May 2009, 05:41
atomy wrote:
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..


I think, in order to weaken the argument, you should show that the STRICT or UNSTRICT gun-control laws are not a factor to reduce the crime rate. E does say that relationship, that is, E shows that like strict...states, the unstrict states do have the same gun owned by the citizens, so E weakens the argument
_________________

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 258
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 65 [0], given: 1

GMAT Tests User
Re: 1000 cr [#permalink] New post 22 May 2009, 06:40
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
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 267
Location: nj
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 2

GMAT Tests User
Re: 1000 cr [#permalink] New post 22 May 2009, 08:55
I choose E.

my reason to choose E is that it directly attacks the reason for more violent crimes in the conclusion. The reason is "not to have a gun control law"

A states some reasoning for the states , which have "gun control laws"

A ---> less impact - if "having gun control law" decreases the crime in some other state then we should also not repeal gun control law

E ---> more impact - if "not having a gun control" law increases the crime in some other state then why to repeal the gcl.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 94
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 2

Re: 1000 cr [#permalink] New post 22 May 2009, 10:14
Guys, OA is A. I asked this question so as to confirm that i've used the correct reasoning.. :)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 258
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 65 [0], given: 1

GMAT Tests User
Re: 1000 cr [#permalink] New post 22 May 2009, 15:52
atomy wrote:
Guys, OA is A. I asked this question so as to confirm that i've used the correct reasoning.. :)


Mate, I must doubt about your OA, where's source ?
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1941
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 275 [0], given: 1

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: 1000 cr [#permalink] New post 22 May 2009, 18:52
atomy wrote:
Guys, OA is A. I asked this question so as to confirm that i've used the correct reasoning.. :)


atomy wrote:
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..


Misleading! :oops:

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
_________________

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 94
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 2

Re: 1000 cr [#permalink] New post 23 May 2009, 05:30
this question is from 1000 cr gmat section...
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Posts: 65
Location: Korea, Republic of
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT Date: 08-16-2012
GPA: 3.05
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 36

GMAT Tests User
Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent [#permalink] New post 04 Jul 2012, 17:20
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.

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 171
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 7

Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent [#permalink] New post 14 Jan 2013, 03:29
I chose E ... since the criteria for comparing both the situations should be the same ... i.e. both should containd same number of people owning guns
Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent   [#permalink] 14 Jan 2013, 03:29
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Experts publish their posts in the topic The rate of violent crime in this state is up 35 percent elegan 7 29 Oct 2012, 22:07
2 In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent PUNEETSCHDV 2 14 Aug 2012, 23:16
1 Experts publish their posts in the topic In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent walker 7 20 Mar 2008, 12:07
In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent girikorat 9 08 Nov 2006, 20:31
In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent damit 5 13 Jul 2005, 16:00
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.