Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 2
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 22 Jan 2017, 00:14

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate,

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2010
Posts: 194
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

03 Aug 2010, 12:18
Question already posted twice ...OA C.........
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2010
Posts: 333
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 7

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2010, 07:40
Good question.....+1 for C
Intern
Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 17
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2010, 04:53
C

kirankp wrote:
Newspaper editorial:
In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A.Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed. - Passage states that the inmates who had taken the courses committed fewer crimes overall than other inmates. Fewer does not mean the same. A out.
B.Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population. - N/A
C.The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released. - Answer
D.Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does. - N/A
E.[/b]The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime. - N/A
Manager
Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 98
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2010, 07:04
Agree with C.
Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1712
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 97

Kudos [?]: 915 [0], given: 109

### Show Tags

16 Aug 2010, 15:19
+1 C
_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Manager
Joined: 29 Dec 2009
Posts: 122
Location: india
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 10

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2010, 01:34
AGREED WID C
Senior Manager
Affiliations: Volunteer Operation Smile India, Creative Head of College IEEE branch (2009-10), Chief Editor College Magazine (2009), Finance Head College Magazine (2008)
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 471
Location: India
WE2: Entrepreneur (E-commerce - The Laptop Skin Vault)
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
WE: Marketing (Other)
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 145 [0], given: 24

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2010, 01:55
IMO C...Nice question
_________________

Kidchaos

http://www.laptopskinvault.com

Follow The Laptop Skin Vault on:

Consider Kudos if you think the Post is good
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot. Nothing is going to change. It's not. - Dr. Seuss

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 276
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2010, 19:18
I also went for C.
_________________

Trying hard to achieve something unachievable now....

Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 141
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 26

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2010, 19:22
Went with C after using the negation technique
Manager
Joined: 14 Dec 2010
Posts: 218
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 680 Q44 V39
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

03 Mar 2011, 02:45
Picked C. I don't see how A can be an option.
Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Posts: 65
Schools: ISB '16, NUS '15
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 49

Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 May 2014, 03:06
Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough
on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Part of this effort has been to deny inmates
the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to
the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken
such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates. Which of the following
is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a
crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.
B. Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general
population.
C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than
other inmates to commit crimes after being released.
D. Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior
than taking college-level courses does.
E. The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something
effective is being done about crime.

Hi EGMAT,

My analysis, conclusion of the argument is "this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal". keeping this understanding , i can eliminate option B,D&E.

now in option A.

A. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a
crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

This is a new information and negation of this sentence would be

Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is likely to deter anyone from a
crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

So that actually says govt goal can be achieve and shatters the author conclusion.

Now for Option C

C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than
other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

Negating this argument says

C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely than
other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

In argument it is given that inmates are already commited fever crime. the only difference in the option C , while negating it says that they will less likely to commit crimes after being released.

i thought option C is just re-statement with only difference after being released.

So I'm confused ,please clear my understanding.

Thanks
Director
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 579
Schools: Cambridge'16
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 40

Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 May 2014, 00:49
This is typical "defender strategy" for causation statement. Correct answer eliminate any other reason of effect, in this case, likelihood of committing to crime was not already lower in collegians

C
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1996
Followers: 2084

Kudos [?]: 7166 [0], given: 267

Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 May 2014, 23:07
Nitinaka19 wrote:
Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough
on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Part of this effort has been to deny inmates
the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to
the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken
such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates. Which of the following
is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a
crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.
B. Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general
population.
C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than
other inmates to commit crimes after being released.
D. Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior
than taking college-level courses does.
E. The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something
effective is being done about crime.

Hi EGMAT,

My analysis, conclusion of the argument is "this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal". keeping this understanding , i can eliminate option B,D&E.

now in option A.

A. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a
crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

This is a new information and negation of this sentence would be

Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is likely to deter anyone from a
crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

So that actually says govt goal can be achieve and shatters the author conclusion.

Now for Option C

C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than
other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

Negating this argument says

C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely than
other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

In argument it is given that inmates are already commited fever crime. the only difference in the option C , while negating it says that they will less likely to commit crimes after being released.

i thought option C is just re-statement with only difference after being released.

So I'm confused ,please clear my understanding.

Thanks

Hi Nitin,

First of all, thanks for sharing your analysis. I truly appreciate that you put in the required efforts before asking a questions

I see that your negation of option A is not entirely correct and this may be contributing to the confusion.

What do you think is the negation of the below statement?

He is unlikely to kill anyone.

Which of the following 2 is the negation?
1. He is likely to call anyone
2. He is likely to kill someone.

I look forward to your response on this.

Now, coming to option C.

The argument says that people who take course commit fewer crimes. Right?

On the basis of this, the argument concludes that the governor's plan will be counterproductive.

So, what is the most fundamental assumption underlying?

The most fundamental assumption is that the courses are somewhat responsible for the fewer crimes. (Please note the difference between this assumption and the statement given in the passage. The statement in the passage is about correlation i.e. two things (course and fewer crimes) co-exist. This assumption is about causality i.e courses are responsible for fewer crimes. You are missing this difference in your analysis).

Now, if we somehow prove that the courses are not responsible for fewer crimes, both the above assumption and the conclusion will fall apart. Right?

This is what option C does.

Its negation says that people who chose the courses were in any case likely to commit fewer crimes. So, this means that the courses didn't lead to fewer crimes; such people were in any case going to commit fewer crimes.

Since the negation of option C topples the conclusion, option C is a correct assumption.

Does it help?

Feel free to ask in case of any further queries

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Posts: 65
Schools: ISB '16, NUS '15
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 49

Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 May 2014, 00:57
Hi Chiranjeev,

Thanks for the clarification,Still there are certain queries i need to clarify,

As you mention its a causative statement, which i really found very useful and really make this analysis a bit easy to understand.
So going with this understanding , Criminal who took courses leads to fewer crime.
Now in option A states after negating , Criminal not taking course will leads to no fewer crime and this means its not a valid assumption. (No X no Y structure is not a valid assumption)

But in Option C your negated statement says " people who chose the courses were in any case likely to commit fewer crimes."
whereas mine negated statement is "The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released."

howcome "were already less likely than other inmates " leads to "any case likely to ?

what i assume is less likely than other inmates is just a part of modifier which can be neglected while negating.

He is unlikely to kill anyone negated statement would be

He is likely to kill anyone or can we say He is unlikely to kill no one ? i'm having doubt on the latter statement?

Thanks
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 131
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 101

Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 May 2014, 06:16
Newspaper editorial:
In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.

since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates, therefore this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal. (and what is the governor's ultimate goal: to reduce the crime rate)

assumption: taking college level course in prison is the reason that inmates who had taken such courses commit fewer crimes than others inmates.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A.Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed. we are talking about criminals not anyone
B.Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.
C.The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released. so the courses are not the reason. these criminals ( which criminals? those who take such courses in prison) were already less likely than other criminals to commit crimes after being released
D.Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does. the argument is about college level course
E.
The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.irrelevant
Intern
Joined: 19 Feb 2014
Posts: 9
GMAT Date: 06-24-2014
GPA: 2.75
WE: Project Management (Manufacturing)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 7

Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 May 2014, 09:30
Clear C for me.
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1996
Followers: 2084

Kudos [?]: 7166 [1] , given: 267

Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2014, 20:07
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
Nitinaka19 wrote:
Hi Chiranjeev,

Thanks for the clarification,Still there are certain queries i need to clarify,

As you mention its a causative statement, which i really found very useful and really make this analysis a bit easy to understand.
So going with this understanding , Criminal who took courses leads to fewer crime.
Now in option A states after negating , Criminal not taking course will leads to no fewer crime and this means its not a valid assumption. (No X no Y structure is not a valid assumption)

But in Option C your negated statement says " people who chose the courses were in any case likely to commit fewer crimes."
whereas mine negated statement is "The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released."

howcome "were already less likely than other inmates " leads to "any case likely to ?

what i assume is less likely than other inmates is just a part of modifier which can be neglected while negating.

He is unlikely to kill anyone negated statement would be

He is likely to kill anyone or can we say He is unlikely to kill no one ? i'm having doubt on the latter statement?

Thanks

Hi Nitin,

Let's struggle on this together

Even though you have rejected option A, your reason is still not correct. So, there's more to learn here

Before we look at option A again, let's look at the simple examples of negation that I asked you to attempt:

Statement: He is unlikely to kill anyone.

To negate any statement, you need to first understand the meaning of the statement. Reliance on rules (negating the verb etc) is not always helpful. What is the meaning of the above statement?

It means that there is very less chance that he will kill anyone. So, it is a milder version of saying that He will not kill anyone. Right?

Now, what will be the negation of this statement?

Negation means saying something exactly opposite of the original statement.

The negation would be a milder version of "He will kill someone" (If he kills anyone, the original statement falls apart. He need not kill everybody to breakdown the original statement. Even if he kills one person, the original statement falls apart)

Now, the negation would be "He is likely to kill someone".

Now, what if you just said "He is likely to kill anyone". What would it mean?

It would mean that any person who comes in front of him is likely to be killed. In other words, it means that he is likely to kill everyone. But you know now that this is not what we require in the negation.

Hope this part is clear! If not, spend some more time on it before moving forward.

Coming to option A now,

The negation of option A would be:

Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is likely to deter some people from crimes that they might otherwise have committed.

Now, here you need to clearly understand the original meaning of option A. Only then would you be able to see how exactly the above negation is arrived at.

What does this negated statement means?

It means that "not taking college-level courses" is actually good for some people as it deters them from crime. Right?

Now, it does weaken the conclusion, which indicates that we should offer college-level courses.

Right?

But how should negation of an assumption affect the conclusion?

Should it weaken the conclusion or break it down?

The answer is that the negation of an assumption should break-down the conclusion. In other words, once the assumption is negated, we should not have any belief in the validity of the conclusion.

Now, this is not the case here. Agreed that option A indicates that not taking college level course will help some people but what about the rest (or even majority) of the people? If the college level courses help majority of the people, then we should have them even if some people are benefited from not having them. (So, you can see the conclusion can still hold even after negating option A)

Now coming to option C,

We are both saying the same thing, Nitin

I am saying they are likely to commit fewer crimes.

You are saying they are less likely to commit crimes.

See there is a word "fewer" in my sentence, which is missing in yours.

Both mean the same.

I hope it helps!

Please let me know if you still have questions

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Posts: 65
Schools: ISB '16, NUS '15
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 49

Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 May 2014, 08:27
Wow..!!! Such a graet relief, Thanks a lot Chiranjeev, Each n every word so meaningful. Got straight into my head.

Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate,   [#permalink] 21 May 2014, 08:27

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 38 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
11 Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, 17 18 Sep 2010, 22:27
Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, 11 23 May 2008, 11:40
Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, 12 12 Jan 2008, 07:52
1 Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, 16 11 Oct 2007, 16:09
Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, 7 02 Sep 2007, 00:37
Display posts from previous: Sort by