|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 223
Location: Taipei
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 [#permalink]
 10 Sep 2006, 23:08
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 327
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
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: 1138
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
14
[1] , given: 0
|
1
This post received
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 Meadowbrook’s expenditures for crime prevention over the past four years compare to Parkdale’s expenditures - Irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 732
Location: Madrid
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR- violent crime rate (weaken) [#permalink]
10 Sep 2006, 23:58
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: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 732
Location: Madrid
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
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: 1138
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
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: 1185
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 0
|
D for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1185
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 0
|
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: 764
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
straight D, this is pure math
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
