To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I propose that we

This question is clearly of the “Strengthen” type, as evidenced by the phrase in the question stem “which… would most strengthen the conclusion”. As with most Strengthen questions, our job is to identify the disconnect (or logical gap) between the conclusion and the premises upon which the conclusion relies. The primary logical gap is that we do not know if access to firearms actually causes violent crimes. The conclusion erroneously assumes that performing background checks on potential customers and keeping ex-criminals from purchasing firearms would naturally result in fewer violent crimes.

Think about all the possibilities that could disprove the conclusion: the stimulus never explicitly states (1) guns are even involved in violent crimes, (2) that ex-criminals are the ones who commit those violent crimes, or (3) that violent crime rates are connected to firearm access. If any one of these assumptions is not true, it would seriously weaken the argument.

Answer choice A does not mind the logical gap. Mentioning the goal of gun control legislation simply provides context for the story without making the argument stronger. After reading answer choice A, we are still no closer to finding out why limiting firearm access would reduce violent crime.

Answer choice B seems (at first) to strengthen the argument, but it makes several unjustifiable assumptions in the process. First, answer choice B seems to assume that the ex-criminals do not already have a firearm. If they already owned a firearm, there would be no need for them to go through the process of purchasing additional guns. Also, we do not know how much ex-criminals contribute to the violent crime statistics. Answer choice B talks about “ex-criminals who commit violent crimes”, but this could be a very small number and the conclusion could still be valid if the legislation still reduced violent crime as a whole.

Answer choice C is the correct answer. It creates a causal link between access to firearms and violent crimes. If allowing ex-criminals access to firearms increases the rate of violent crime, then restricting such access would reduce the rate. However, many people do not like answer choice C for one word: “can”. This word seems to weaken the premise. (If answer choice C said, “A rise in violent crime is always connected to the availability of firearms to ex-criminals,” then everybody would pick this answer!) Remember, though: “strengthen” questions do not need to be “prove” questions. You are simply looking for the answer choice that – according to the question stem – “most strengthens” the argument. You don’t have to make the argument bulletproof. Pun intended. You just need to strengthen it.

Answer choice D actually weakens the argument. If most ex-criminals purchased firearms outside of legal channels, then legislation affecting legal purchases would not make a difference.

Answer choice E does not mind the gap. After reading answer choice E, we are still no closer to determining whether restricting firearm access reduces violent crime. Answer choice E says restricting access reduces the number of guns, but that is not the same thing as reducing violent crime. E can be eliminated.

Three answers do not even address the logical gap. One answer seems to strengthen the argument, but requires additional information to close the deal (and you should never need additional information to solve a critical reasoning question!) Only one answer – C – creates a logical, causal link between the premises and conclusions, even if that link is somewhat weak. The answer is definitely C.