Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 30 Aug 2014, 20:38

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 227
Location: Taipei
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 [#permalink] New post 10 Sep 2006, 22:08
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

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
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 327
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 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.

1 KUDOS received
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1136
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 20 [1] , given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 10 Sep 2006, 22:55
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
Director
User avatar
Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 728
Location: Madrid
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR- violent crime rate (weaken) [#permalink] New post 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
Director
User avatar
Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 728
Location: Madrid
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 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
VP
avatar
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1136
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 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
VP
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1176
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 11 Sep 2006, 00:49
D for sure.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1176
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 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
Director
User avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 761
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 11 Sep 2006, 00:58
straight D, this is pure math
  [#permalink] 11 Sep 2006, 00:58
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
The rate of violent crime in this state is up 30 percent crejoc 4 18 Aug 2009, 08:28
violent crime rates gmatprep09 4 07 Jul 2009, 07:33
12 The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 janet1511 21 12 Mar 2009, 07:04
1 The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 solidcolor 11 01 Sep 2007, 00:27
The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 gamjatang 9 15 Dec 2005, 23:10
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.