Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under

Okay...1:20 sec!! A good one to round up these criminals and the contest!! ...

Btw Souvik, if I am not wrong, today's is the last question of RAGCT?

easy pick on this one . typical of gmat
CHEERS

Pre-thinking helped me to locate the answer...

Hope got it correct...

raced against the timer and got it wrong I guess

Prethinking is the key to answering such questions.

phew! that was a tough one! Still not 100% sure though...waiting for the OE!

That took a while ! Is it something to do with comparing percentages to numbers?

hope thiz time my answer is rite.....
waiting for OE....

Took a lot of time to answer the question !
found it a bit tricky
Waiting for OA

Tried to solve it again and there I did the mistake.

The percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision, so intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes

Leap of faith from arrested to committing crimes. Option C) bridges the gap.

Almost forgot to answer this question. Hope I wasnt too late

a very tricky question but i managed to get the answer slightly under a minute... phew :D

souvik101990 : its a very good question .. +kudos to u .
but i took 2 min to answer this one is it too much time consumption for these type qstn ?
Also please post the OA with OE.

thanks

I am really stuck between C and E. can my any GC friend sail please me out of this question's maze.

RAGCT Winners announced!

VeritasPrepKarishma,

Just need a bit of clarity on the highlighted portion: It says that we are assuming that no. of crimes committed are same under both types of supervision.
Please correct me, if i am wrong but are we not assuming that the PROPORTION of re-arrests to crimes committed is same for both types of supervision.

\(Re-arrests/Crimes Committed\) for Intense Supervision = \(Re-arrests/Crimes Committed\) for Routine Supervision

We are given that the Percentage of re-arrests is same under both types of supervision but that doesn't mean that the number of re-arrests is same, right?
And by that logic, we can conclude that the two ratios must be equal, hence the same proportion but not necessarily have the same numbers.
For ex: re-arrests to no. of crimes committed proportion for both routine and intense supervision respectively-:
\(3/5 = 6/10\)
So, here the number of crimes committed are different, yet the two ratios are equal.

Please clarify.
Thank you.

Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under routine supervision. A recent program has allowed criminals to leave prison early under intensive supervision; they must obey curfews and in some cases they must be electronically monitored. The percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision, so intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

(A) The criminals under intensive supervision, but not those under routine supervision, were required to work or attend school during their supervision period.

(B) All of the criminals who were arrested while under routine supervision had been in prison more than once before being paroled and put under supervision.

(C) The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under routine supervision.

(D) Of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have committed crimes if they had been under routine supervision.

(E) The number of criminals put under routine supervision was not significantly greater than the number of criminals put under intensive supervision.


I have doubt regarding option D, it says that "of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have commited crime if they had been under routine supervision", if we negate it , it becomes, "of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would have commited crime if they had been under routine supervision". I was wondering doesn't it kills the conclusion that intensive supervision is no more effective