Over the past ten years, the population of Dismaston has grown five ti

B,
we have to find a statement which does not explain the surprising finding.

B)The police now have a computerized filing system, so that it is almost impossible for a violent crime to be unrecorded.
it only gives the confirmation that records of crime is accurate. it does not explain why or how numbers of crime decreased.

IMO B because if the new system was implemented, there would be a increase in the number of cases that could've been lost, but are now reported. Losing cases would reduce the number of violent crimes reported.

Hi Mike
Please help with this CR passage
Regards, Abhijeet

Dear abhijeetjha & others,
I'm happy to help. I am the author of this Magoosh question, and the OA is (B). I will explain.

We want to explain a decrease in the number of violent felonies reported. This is tricky, because it's an "except" question. Four of the answers will constitute valid reasons that the number of recorded violent crimes would decrease, and these valid reasons are NOT the correct answer. Only one choice does not indicate why the number of recorded violent crimes would decrease, and that answer is correct.

(A) White collar crimes, which are almost always non-violent, tend to replace street-crimes during times of prosperity.
During prosperity, as Dismaston is experience, there is a rise in non-violent white collar crimes, and a corresponding drop in street crimes, many of which are violent. Thus, fewer violent crimes. I have no idea why mba1382 thinks anything about this is vague. In my mind, the key word in this choice is the word "replace", which implies that as the former increases, the latter decreases. Not all street crimes are violent, but obviously some are, whereas we are told that white collar crimes are "almost always non-violent", so if the white collar crimes "replace" the street crimes, that will result in a drop in violent crimes.

(B) The police now have a computerized filing system, so that it is almost impossible for a violent crime to be unrecorded.
It is "now ... impossible for a violent crime to be unrecorded", implying that, before, this was possible. If the police didn't have this system five years ago, that would mean at that time some violent crimes occurred, but because of filing snafus or other mistakes, the crimes weren't properly recorded. They slipped through the cracks. Thus, at that time, there would be fewer reported violent crimes than there were violent crimes that actually occurred. If the violent crime rate remained the same, and they got this new computer system, then every violent crime would be recorded, and thus, the number of reported violent crimes would rise to be equal to the number of violent crimes that actually happened. If anything, this fact would explain an increase in the number of reported violent crimes, so it certainly does nothing to explain the decrease.
This choice doesn't explain at all a drop in crimes, so this is the best answer to the "except" question. Again, I am unclear why mba1382 thinks anything is vague here.

(C) During this time, the state considerably lengthened felony convicts' waiting period for parole.
If the parole period is lengthen, that means even if new convicts are going to prison at the same rate, fewer are coming out. More in & fewer out means a decrease in those folks on the streets, which would result in a decrease in violent crimes.

(D) The police force has expanded in number and is equipped with the latest crime detection technology.
Cops have better equipment, so they can catch the bad guys better and arrest them and sent them to prison. That results in fewer violent crimes.

(E) The city is now much better lit at night, and security cameras protect a large number of public venues.
Lights & security cameras are deterrents for crime, and also enhance detection & apprehension & conviction. It become easily to catch & try the criminal, and much easier to convict them if we have video evidence of the crime. That involves fewer getting off the hook when they are on trial, and more going to prison, which reduces the number of violent crimes.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Thanks Mike for your explanation. I am no expert but just wanted to understand the 2 options. Here is my understanding as below:

As you said about option A that

Not all street crimes are violent, but obviously some are, whereas we are told that white collar crimes are "almost always non-violent", so if the white collar crimes "replace" the street crimes, that will result in a drop in violent crimes.

Now as I stated in my previous posts that it doesn't really account for the decrease in violent felonies rather focuses on white crimes and moreover on street crimes (ambiguous to assume as violent felonies) . Rather this option somewhat weakens the claim as in times of prosperity, violent felonies might increase as well. In fact many other assumptions will come into play.

Now about option B, as you mention in your explanation that "If the police didn't have this system five years ago, that would mean at that time some violent crimes occurred, but because of filing snafus or other mistakes, the crimes weren't properly recorded.".

I thought exactly opposite might happen as posted in my previous posts with following assumption:

While reporting those violent felonies, there might be manual or human errors such redundancy i.e. same crime being reported over the years or within a year.

Since we have to make such assumptions about options A & B , that's the reason I said that A & B seem vague. Here I am not trying to prove anyone wrong or straying away from healthy discussions but just trying to convey my reasoning behind A & B.

Dear mba1382,
I appreciate your criticisms, and I will do my best to address them.

I still submit that, in option (A), you are not fully appreciating the word "replace" and what is signifies. It says that white collar crimes "replace" street crimes. Let's say the time of the argument is 2010, so that 2005 is "five years ago." Let's say, for simplicity, in 2005, there were
20 white collar crimes
180 street crimes
Now, fast-forward to 2010 --- let's say 100 street crimes were "replaced" with white collar crimes. Then, in 2010, we would have
120 white collar crimes
80 street crimes
In the log of how many crimes in the city, the total number stayed more or less constant, but part of the "place" held by street crimes in that total was occupied, that is, replaced, by white collar crimes.

Now, to the second point --- true, not all street crimes are violent, but clearly some percentage are. After all, many murders, gang wars, shooting, vehicular crimes, etc. occur outside, on the "streets". I have no idea the percentage --- for simplicity, let's say that 50% of street crimes are violent. From the information in prompt (A) we can assume that 0% of white collar crimes are violent.
Thus, in 2005, we had (0% of 20) + (50% of 180) = 90 violent crimes
and, in 2010, we had (0% of 120) + (50% of 80) = 40 violent crimes
That's a drop in violent crimes.

As for option (B): I totally agree with you, if option (B) said only
The police now have a computerized filing system, and it is more accurate than the previous system.
then this would be open to tremendous ambiguity. We wouldn't know which way the inaccuracies of the past would have gone --- underrecording or overrecording. There could be more or fewer recorded crimes in the past, depending on the direction of the mistakes they made in the past.
Instead, the full version of option (B) says:
The police now have a computerized filing system, so that it is almost impossible for a violent crime to be unrecorded.
Unlike the first version in red, this version implies a direction. Now, it is impossible for these crimes to be unrecorded, which clearly implies the earlier problem, the earlier issue with the previous filing system, was that some violent crimes were unrecorded.

My friend, I realize that, to some extent, I am repeating myself. I am not sure what else to say. If you are still not convinced, here's what I suggest. Call in another expert. For example, VeritasPrepKarishma is a truly brilliant individual. Any of the MGMAT folks would be fine --- those people are extremely sharp. Any of the moderators of the SC forum (listed at the bottom of every post) would be fine --- they're all very intelligent. Send someone along those lines a private message with a link to this thread, and ask for their explanation of the first two option. I totally admit that, since I am the author of this question, perhaps I am too biased, too close to it to see all the perspectives. Perhaps you need to hear it in someone else's words.

My friend, I want to support your understanding of GMAT CR question in any way I can. Let me know if you have any more questions for me.

Mike

Can someone explain why "C" is definitely out and "B" is definitely in? I don't really like the OE for both of these answer choices.

Dear TooLong150,

I'm happy to respond, especially as I was the author of this question.

During a time of population growth and economic growth, we want to explain a drop in the number of reported violent felonies.

(B) The police now have a computerized filing system, so that it is almost impossible for a violent crime to be unrecorded

Notice that the wording here implies that the previous filing system might have allowed for some violent felonies, for whatever reason, to slip through the cracks and go unreported. If there is any possibility that some violent felonies were not reported earlier, and now every single one is reported, that would only increase the number of reported violent felonies, and most certainly would not explain a drop in the number of reported violent felonies. Regardless of how the filing system changed, this one doesn't explain anything. This is an EXCEPT question, so the one that that doesn't explain anything in particular is the correct answer.

(C) During this time, the state considerably lengthened felony convicts' waiting period for parole.

Parole is when bad guys get out of jail. If the state "considerably lengthened felony convicts' waiting period for parole", then the bad guys would be stuck in jail for considerably longer. If more bad guys are stuck in jail, then fewer of them are on the streets committing crimes. This definitely would explain a drop in the number of violent felonies. Again, because this is an EXCEPT question, anything that's a valid explanation doesn't work as the answer, so this is out.

Does this make sense, or do you have further questions on this?

Mike

B it is.

A. White collar crimes, which are almost always non-violent, tend to replace street-crimes during times of prosperity. [crime is there but not violent or something that is seen on street or reported. +ve effect]
B. The police now have a computerized filing system, so that it is almost impossible for a violent crime to be unrecorded.[so how does this help in reducing the crime. Its just recording the crime. Doesn't help us in our quest ] Correct.
C. During this time, the state considerably lengthened felony convicts’ waiting period for parole. [less convicts on street. +ve effect]
D. The police force has expanded in number and is equipped with the latest crime detection technology. [on same line as E.+ve effect.]
E. The city is now much better lit at night, and security cameras protect a large number of public venues. [better security measure. +ve effect.]

Hi Mike,

Conclusion is : The number of violent felonies reported per year is now lower than it was ten years ago.
So option B - The police now have a computerized filing system, so that it is almost impossible for a violent crime to be unrecorded - will not strengthen the argument?

If I say : Even though previously all the crimes were not recorded, now we record all the crimes but still we have lower crime rate.
then it will not strenthen the argument?

Dear chetan86
I'm happy to respond.

First of all, keep in mind, there is no argument in this prompt. This is a paradox question. The prompt simply presents two pieces of evidence that, on the surface, seem contradictory --- how can both be true simultaneously? There's no argument, but simply a paradox to resolve. Now, to make things even trickier, this is an ""EXCEPT" question. In other words, four choices will legitimately contribute to resolving the paradox, and they are not correct, but one choice either is irrelevant or strengthens the argument.

So (B) tell us the police have a better filing system --- perhaps some violent crimes in the past went unrecorded, but now all are recorded. This would seem to explain a rise in the number of recorded violent crimes, and most certainly would not explain how they would drop. This heightens the paradox, rather than resolving it.

Now, one mistake some GMAT students make is the reasoning --- well, if there's a better filing system for recording the crimes, maybe that provides a disincentive to the criminals, thus explaining the drop in crime. This is pure nonsense. You see, I am going to go out on a limb and guess that you, my friend, have never robbed a bank or hijacked a vehicle at gunpoint or committed a murder. I don't even know you, but I am going to guess about that and, most likely, be spot-on correct. You see, folks who are studying for the GMAT tend to be successful students, intelligent & conscientious & responsible and able to plan ahead and think logically about long term consequences. This is the profile of someone taking the GMAT, and it is pretty much the opposite of the profile of someone who commits violent crimes. By and large, most violent criminals are not conscientious, not particularly responsible or reliable, and not able to foresee and think through long term consequences in a way that would provide any break to their impulsive actions. If the police bureaucracy has a new and improved filing system --- yes, the police detectives and leaders understand the significance of that; logical intelligent people who take the GMAT understand the significance of that; but people who commit violent crimes may well not register in the least what consequence that bureaucratic change might have for their lives --- they may well have no idea about it and no way to find out about it. (The police tend not to broadcast their bureaucratic improvements to the criminal population!)

One of the most common and profound philosophical mistake that so many people make is: everyone else operates as I do. Everyone else has the same priorities & values & motivation & aspirations & dreams & hopes & fears as I do. I would estimate that some business, not seeing past this error, have lost millions of dollars. If you plan to go into the business world and be successful, it is extremely important never to underestimate how different other humans, even other intelligent and competent and successful humans, can be from us.

Overall, (B) heightens the paradox and does nothing to resolve it. That's why this is the OA.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

My Explanation:
A) White collar crimes, which are almost always non-violent, tend to replace street-crimes during times of prosperity. - Provides an explanation why violent crimes are reduced during the specified period.

B) The police now have a computerized filing system, so that it is almost impossible for a violent crime to be unrecorded. - Okay, that means all the violent crimes that have ever occurred will be recorded because of the computerized filing system. But ideally in this scenario, the # of violent crimes might be increased. Hence, this doesn't explain the surprised finding

C) During this time, the state considerably lengthened felony convicts' waiting period for parole - Long waiting period means, felony convicts' are still in jail that means fewer violent crimes

D) The police force has expanded in number and is equipped with the latest crime detection technology. - Great! That means police force can better violent crimes now hence may be the reason for less violent crimes

E) The city is now much better lit at night, and security cameras protect a large number of public venues. - Okay, so that means the city is under tight supervision that allows less room for violent crimes.

Hence Option B is the answer

Thanks,
Chanakya84

Official Explanation

This is an EXCEPT question. Four of the answer will be perfectly valid explanations, and these will be incorrect. One of the answers will not be good explanation ---- either it will be irrelevant, or it may even suggest a rise instead of a decline; this oddball choice will be the correct answer.

The credited answer is (B). The new filing system, in essence, never misses the report of a violent crime. This at least implies that perhaps the previous filing system missed some violent crimes on occasion --- for whatever reason, some violent crimes that took place slipped through the cracks and failed to be reported. Well, if we were not reporting everything before, and are reporting everything now, if anything this might suggest an increase in the number of reported violent crimes. It most certainly would not, by itself, explain a decrease. This is not in any way a good explanation, so this the correct answer.

We know, over the past decade, "the average income in the city has risen substantially" and "a tremendous amount of capital has flowed into city," both of which indicate conditions of prosperity. Therefore, according to choice (A), white-collar crimes would increase, and street-crimes would decrease, with a concomitant drop in violent crimes. Choice (A) is a valid explanation, so it's an incorrect answer.

If the state kept convicts in jail longer, that would mean fewer of them would be back out on the streets committing felonies, most of which are violent. Therefore, it would lead to a drop in the number of violent crimes. Choice (C) is a valid explanation, so it's an incorrect answer.

Better police and better crime detection means more arrests and fewer violent crimes. Therefore, it would lead to a drop in the number of violent crimes. Choice (D) is a valid explanation, so it's an incorrect answer.

Better lighting at night and security cameras have some effect in reducing crime. Choice (E) is a valid explanation, so it's an incorrect answer.

BTW, in the category of extra information you don't need to know for the GMAT, the name of this fictional town comes from the name of the "good thief" in the New Testament.

Why can't it be C? A convicted felon is out on parole means he has been deemed safe to be a part of the society again? How can we assume that a convicted felon out on parole is equally likely to commit a crime?

Is anyone not noticing the difference between crimes and normal crimes ?

Choice D : The police are better equipped to find crime in general. Does this explain a decrease in "Violent Crime" ? I don't think so .

It might explain why crimes in general might have reduced , but I don't think it explains why there will be a reducing in specifically "Violent crimes per se".