The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 22 Jan 2017, 21:32

### 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

# The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 216
Location: Taipei
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 194 [0], given: 0

The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2006, 22:08
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 3 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents) in Meadowbrook is 60 percent higher now than it was four years ago. The corresponding increase for Parkdale is only 10 percent. These figures support the conclusion that residents of Meadowbrook are more likely to become victims of violent crime than are residents of Parkdale.

The argument above is flawed because it fails to take into account

A:changes in the population density of both Parkdale and Meadowbrook over the past four years

B:how the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale

C:the ratio of violent to nonviolent crimes committed during the past four years in Meadowbrook and Parkdale

D:the violent crime rates in Meadowbrook and Parkdale four years ago

E:how Meadowbrookâ€™s expenditures for crime prevention over the past four years compare to Parkdaleâ€™s expenditures
If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 330
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2006, 22:15
I think this is (D)
_________________

A well-balanced person is one who has a drink in each of his hands.

VP
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1134
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 40 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2006, 22:55
1
KUDOS
One more for D.

A:changes in the population density of both Parkdale and Meadowbrook over the past four years - violent crime rate = number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents. So, the violent crime rate already takes the number of people into account .

B:how the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale - rate of population growth is irrelevant.

C:the ratio of violent to nonviolent crimes committed during the past four years in Meadowbrook and Parkdale - non violent crimes??? Out of scope

D:the violent crime rates in Meadowbrook and Parkdale four years ago - YES. Suppose M had a violent crime rate of 10 and P had a crime rate of 20. With a 60% rise M has a rate of 16. With a 10% rise P has a rate of 22. M > P : shows that argument is flawed.

E:how Meadowbrookâ€™s expenditures for crime prevention over the past four years compare to Parkdaleâ€™s expenditures - Irrelevant.
Director
Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 720
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

Re: CR- violent crime rate (weaken) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2006, 22:58
jerrywu wrote:
The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents) in Meadowbrook is 60 percent higher now than it was four years ago. The corresponding increase for Parkdale is only 10 percent. These figures support the conclusion that residents of Meadowbrook are more likely to become victims of violent crime than are residents of Parkdale.

The argument above is flawed because it fails to take into account

A:changes in the population density of both Parkdale and Meadowbrook over the past four years

B:how the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale

C:the ratio of violent to nonviolent crimes committed during the past four years in Meadowbrook and Parkdale

D:the violent crime rates in Meadowbrook and Parkdale four years ago

E:how Meadowbrook?s expenditures for crime prevention over the past four years compare to Parkdale?s expenditures

Between A and B
I ll take B
The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents)
in Meadowbrook is 60 percent higher now than it was four years ago and what if the population declined significantly over four year period?
The corresponding increase for Parkdale is only 10 percent.
If population for example doubled?[/i]
_________________

IE IMBA 2010

Director
Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 720
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2006, 23:11
ago
kripalkavi wrote:
One more for D.

A:changes in the population density of both Parkdale and Meadowbrook over the past four years - violent crime rate = number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents. So, the violent crime rate already takes the number of people into account .

B:how the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale - rate of population growth is irrelevant.

C:the ratio of violent to nonviolent crimes committed during the past four years in Meadowbrook and Parkdale - non violent crimes??? Out of scope

D:the violent crime rates in Meadowbrook and Parkdale four years ago - YES. Suppose M had a violent crime rate of 10 and P had a crime rate of 20. With a 60% rise M has a rate of 16. With a 10% rise P has a rate of 22. M > P : shows that argument is flawed.

E:how Meadowbrook?s expenditures for crime prevention over the past four years compare to Parkdale?s expenditures - Irrelevant.

OK lets suppose that violent crime rates of both cities four years ago.But stop man,It was 4 years ago. And we are talking about present days
During four year period rates could change many times!
_________________

IE IMBA 2010

VP
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1134
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 3

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

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2006, 00:41
Yurik79 wrote:
ago
kripalkavi wrote:
One more for D.

A:changes in the population density of both Parkdale and Meadowbrook over the past four years - violent crime rate = number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents. So, the violent crime rate already takes the number of people into account .

B:how the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale - rate of population growth is irrelevant.

C:the ratio of violent to nonviolent crimes committed during the past four years in Meadowbrook and Parkdale - non violent crimes??? Out of scope

D:the violent crime rates in Meadowbrook and Parkdale four years ago - YES. Suppose M had a violent crime rate of 10 and P had a crime rate of 20. With a 60% rise M has a rate of 16. With a 10% rise P has a rate of 22. M > P : shows that argument is flawed.

E:how Meadowbrook?s expenditures for crime prevention over the past four years compare to Parkdale?s expenditures - Irrelevant.

OK lets suppose that violent crime rates of both cities four years ago.But stop man,It was 4 years ago. And we are talking about present days
During four year period rates could change many times!

conclusion is: residents of Meadowbrook are more likely to become victims of violent crime than are residents of Parkdale

don't you think that D directly weakens it?
The rate of population growth is quite irrelevant becase the crime rate mentioned is in terms of 1000 people.
VP
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1172
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 148 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2006, 00:49
D for sure.
VP
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1172
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 148 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2006, 00:51
D for sure.

The likelihood of something is a percentage. so population number is irrelevant. but 60% and 10% are compared with their own 4 years ago. so what are the current rate? whose current rate is higher? you gotta know those rates for years ago.
Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 755
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2006, 00:58
straight D, this is pure math
11 Sep 2006, 00:58
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
4 The rate of violent crime in this state is up 35 percent 8 29 Oct 2012, 22:07
The rate of violent crime in this state is up 30 percent 4 18 Aug 2009, 08:28
violent crime rates 4 07 Jul 2009, 07:33
55 The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 33 12 Mar 2009, 07:04
1 The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 11 01 Sep 2007, 00:27
Display posts from previous: Sort by