The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite fo

The answer is (E).

(A): If crime is not reduced, it will add to arrests, convictions, and prison terms - this strengthens the conclusion. Incorrect.
(B): There is no relation between what happenned in another city and what will happen in this one. Incorrect.
(C): No relation to arrests, convictions, and prison terms. Incorrect.
(D): Even if some arrests result in prison terms, convictions etc, this still increases the workload for additional court and prison employees.
(E): CORRECT. If the increase in police officers has a deterrent effect on crime, then crime will actually go down => additional court and prison employees are not needed because the workload of prison and court employees actually goes down.

ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

Fact: There is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers,
Fact: But not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate
Conclusion: Middletown should not hire more police officers.

In weaken questions, you will see "qualified conclusions" very often. What is "qualified conclusion"?. A qualified conclusion is a conclusion that will happen in a particular condition. To weaken this conclusion, just show that particular condition will not happen, or does not exist ==> The conclusion fails.

Apply to this question. The conclusion is based on the assumption: the more police officers, the more convictions. If you can show this assumption is weak --> More police officers, NOT more convictions. ==> The conclusion will be weaken.

ANALYZE EACH ANSWER:

(A) Studies have shown that an increase in a city’s police force does not necessarily reduce crime.
Wrong. It strengthen a conclusion --> wrong.

(B) When one major city increased its police force by 19 percent last year, there were 40 percent more arrests and 13 percent more convictions.
Wrong. It strengthen a conclusion --> wrong.

(C) If funding for the new police officers’ salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year.
Wrong. Out of scope. Nothing about "other services".

(D) In most United States cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms.
Wrong. SHELL GAME.
(1) "In most U.S cities" does not mean "in Middletown". There is a possibility that "more police officers, more convictions in Middletown" --> D is wrong.
(2) Always aware of "extreme" words in GMAT such as: Most, Every, All, Always, Never, etc. Because the logic of GMAT is "nothing is the 100% correct, you should pick the best answer among all options". "Best" differs from "100% correct".

(E) Middletown’s ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime.
Correct. E shows that more police officers, NO more convictions ==> the city does not have to pay more for courts and prison employees.

Hope it helps.

IMO E)

If crime will be less then number of convictions/arrests will be less as well

doesn't that support the argument though?

Nope ... Its is weakening the argument here the flow:

More police --> Less Crime --> less arrests --> Less employes in court and prison to process the caseload of arrests. hence the proposal is not bad et all.

E is Right. If crime is reduced, salaries for addition court and prison employees are not needed, so the decision to hire new officers is not really foolish.

The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite foolish. There is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers, but not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate.

Type - weaken
Boil it down - The proposal to hire 10 new police officers is foolish .
- Although there is sufficient funding for new officer salaries , but not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process increase caseload of arrests

Pre-Thinking - Some reason due to which the caseload of arrests and convictions won't increase

Which of the following, if true, will most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
a. Studies had shown that an increase in city’s place force does not necessarily reduce crime - Incorrect
b. When one major city increased its police force by 19% last year, there were 40% more arrests and 13% more convictions - Incorrect - we don't know 10 is what percentage of workforce but we can infer that caseload of arrests and convictions will increase
c. If funding for the new police officers’ salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year - Irrelevant
d. In most US cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms - Incorrect as convictions and prison terms still might increase
e. Middletown’s ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime . Correct -
The new officers will have a deterrent effect on crime . So , no additional expenditure on support services will be needed

Answer E
_________________

When potential answers use phrases like "most" or "almost all", it is usually a sign of a trap answer.

The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite foolish. There is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers, but not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate.

Which of the following, if true, will most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?

Structure: More cops --(1)--> More arrests and increased caseload --(2)--> Additional court and prison employees required and more salaries to be paid

To Weaken:
Linkage 1: More cops might not lead to increased number of arrests. Maybe crimes won't take place at the first place because of the increased number of cops.
Linkage 2: If the current workforce is able to handle the increased caseload then there won't be a requirement for an additional workforce.

a. Studies had shown that an increase in city’s place force does not necessarily reduce crime
Two situations stem from this point: (a) Crime rate remains same - in such a case no additional workforce is required. (b) Crime rate increases - in such a case an additional workforce might be required. Since we have both the possibilities, so not a strong option.
b. When one major city increased its police force by 19% last year, there were 40% more arrests and 13% more convictions
This point strengthens the Linkage 1 whereas we are here to weaken.
c. If funding for the new police officers’ salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year
Other city services - Out of Scope.
d. In most US cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms
Let's imagine two scenarios:
SC1: [Before the new cops are hired] Arrests: 100 Convictions: 99 (not all) Prison Terms: 98 (not all).
SC2: [After the new cops are hired] Arrests: 150 Convictions: 149 (not all) Prison Terms: 148 (not all).
Even though the condition of 'not all' is satisfied across the scenarios, we might have a case which strengthens the argument.
e. Middletown’s ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime
This point hits the Linkage 1. An increase in the number of cops WILL bring down the crime rate and, thus, won't lead to an increased workload.

Thus, I chose option E.

I ma confused in option A and E, could you please explain?

A and E states the opposite things.
A: increase in police force ---> no decrease in crime. Thus the argument is strengthened.
E: increase in police force ---> decrease in crime. Thus the argument is weakened.

I disagree with this.
'Most' is greater than 50%. I can say it is 51% to 99%. Option D, IMHO, is not wrong because it uses 'most'. Option D is wrong because it uses 'not all'. 'Not all' may range from 0 % - 99%.
Not all may mean 0% arrests result In conviction, i.e. no arrests lead to conviction. If this is the case then this option definitely weakens. However, if it means 99% arrests result in conviction, then the argument is strengthened, not weakened. Thus D is ambiguous because it uses ‘not all’ which has a variable effect on the argument.

Similarly, 'almost all' is close to 100%. It's quite different from 'not all'.

sayantanc2k - please correct me if I am wrong.

Hi TomB,

I am happy to respond.

A. Studies had shown that an increase in city’s police force does not necessarily reduce crime.
So, INCREASE IN CITY'S POLICE FORCE --> NOT NECESSARILY REDUCE CRIME. Thus, more crime so the arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate will even be more. So, the proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middle town is not quite foolish. It strengthens. Therefore, incorrect.

Explanation in detail -

The passage says that hiring new officers usually brings new court expenses, but according to choice E hiring new officers in Middletown will lead to a reduction in crime and thus, perhaps, a reduction in court and prison expenses. Therefore, choice E weakens the conclusion drawn and is the best answer.

Three of the other choices tend to support claims made in the passage;
choice A suggests that arrests will increase, therefore, strengthens,
choice B says that in one city arrests did increase, therefore, strengthens,
choice C confirms the scarcity of funds, therefore, strengthens that the proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is NOT quite foolish.
Choice D is irrelevant; it merely states the obvious about rates of arrest, conviction, and imprisonment.

The answer is E

The reasoning is that if there are sufficient police officers then people would would not commit crime because they would be caught .
The increase in the number of police officers will thus increase vigilance and increase in number will act as deterrent .

The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite foolish. There is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers, but not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate.

Type - weaken

a. Studies had shown that an increase in city’s place force does not necessarily reduce crime - Incorrect - as it strengthens
b. When one major city increased its police force by 19% last year, there were 40% more arrests and 13% more convictions - Incorrect as it strengthens the argument
c. If funding for the new police officers’ salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year. - Irrelevant - we are not bothered how the funding is managed
d. In most US cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms - Irrelevant
e. Middletown’s ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime - weakens - If this is true , then more police will result in lesser crime .
_________________

The question stem already mentions that new officers will generate new caseloads of arrests. What happens when they generate more arrests? -> not decrease in crime? All i mean is that it is aready implied that crime level will decrease after hiring new officers, hence E just restates an implied fact.
Besides, the question is quite misleading on cause and effect:
- by OA E it implies that decrease in crime -> decrease in arrests and caseloads. But decreasing crime itself requires arrests and caseloads and will eventually lead to higher imprisonment. It is just a question of time - when will the officers be able to reach minimum crime level

I hope it is not an OG question

I am not sure whether this is an OG question, but I certainly can point out that increase in arrests does not result in reduction of crime. This is because, the argument says that only increase in in crime will happen and that this increase will burden other departments.
Now, option E says increase in arrests will result in reduction of crimes. There will be a saturation point beyond which the crime rates will get reduced and the city had reached the point.

Actually it is OG question.

You can understand it with the following example:
Now: Crime rates 1000: Arrests workload etc.: 500 ( say 50% result in extra workload). say Need 50 staff to handle .
argument says: Arrest workload could increase extra 100 arrests and need 10 more staff to handle. Need extra money for this 10 staff.

E. After hiring new police officers: Crime: 600 ; arrests workload :300 ( say 50% result in extra workload )
apply argument in E : Arrest workload could increase extra 100 arrests and need 10 more staff to handle.
It means staff can manage without hiring new employees. No new employees no extra cost. So weakens the conclusion that there would be additional cost to manage extra workload.