generis VeritasKarishma nightblade354Please help me with correct negation here:
Quote:
The conclusion in the passage depends on the assumption that
What MUST BE TRUE for the conclusion to be valid?
Quote:
More than a year ago, the city announced that police would crack down on illegally parked cars and that resources would be diverted from writing speeding tickets to ticketing illegally parked cars. But no crackdown has taken place. The police chief claims that resources have had to be diverted from writing speeding tickets to combating the city’s staggering drug problem. Yet the police are still writing as many speeding tickets as ever. Therefore, the excuse about resources being tied up in fighting drug-related crime simply is not true.
Conclusion: The excuse about resources being tied up in fighting drug-related crime simply is not true.
Premise:
Police chief has (say 100) policemen to ticket people who speed cars.
Earlier, city decided to divert above policemen to ticket people who illegally park their cars.
However, recent happenings do not show any evidence of people ticketed for illegally parking their cars.
The Police chef now defends his men: Drug abuse are on rise, so I had to divert my men to combat it.
The people are smarter, they say: Oh if these 100 people were diverted to stop drugs abuse, how come the number of people caught for speeding cars HAVE NOT decreased. So you are showing up an excuse to not issue tickets to people who park their cars illegally.
Quote:
(A) every member of the police force is qualified to work on combating the city’s drug problem
(B) drug-related crime is not as serious a problem for the city as the police chief claims it is
Completely out of scope, qualification of force and seriousness of issue at hand is now way related
to the argument.
Quote:
(C) writing speeding tickets should be as important a priority for the city as combating drug-related crime
I form a bad habit discard options with
should.
Reason: An assumption MUST BE TRUE. No one is asking the author's opinion.
Quote:
(D) the police could be cracking down on illegally parked cars and combating the drug problem without having to reduce writing speeding tickets
Do we negate main verb of the sentence? Please advise on below negation and its effect on conclusion;
Option 1:
the police could NOT be cracking down on illegally parked cars and combating the drug problem without having to reduce writing speeding ticketsOption 2:
the police could be cracking down on illegally parked cars and combating the drug problem while simultaneously having to reduce writing speeding ticketsQuote:
(E) the police cannot continue writing as many speeding tickets as ever while diverting resources to combating drug-related crime
Presenting two negated versions:
the police can continue writing as many speeding tickets as ever while diverting resources to combating drug-related crime.But above defeats my evidence itself, which says: no of speeding tickets are the same.
An assumption is about finding a missing link of evidence, not destroying the evidence itself.
the police cannot continue writing as many speeding tickets as ever while not diverting resources to combating drug-related crimeI found it a complex to review for an effect on the conclusion.