Although the ratio of violent crime to total population is about the

Perfect explanation.

However, would you please explain why (C) is irrevalent?

This is my reasoning.

- If criminals (criminals who have guns) can easily move between C and M, the fact that there are more guns in M than in C serves no purpose.

The main point to explain here is the reason for fewer deaths which is not addressed by any choice except E. The conclusion follows only if the emergency medical service are assumed to be comparable. Otherwise that would account for fewer homicides.

Not D because, the number of criminals may be higher, and the number of deaths may also be higher but that doesn't explain the lesser "percentage" of homicides.

I would think of E.

Imagine E is not true. "Clarksburg does have significantly better emergency medical services than Metroville." which means even though the ratio of violent crimes to the total population is same, fewer crimes turn out to be homicides as ppl in C get better medical care which saves their lives. Hence, the conclusion falls apart.

Can someone explain this :
I got 'D' but OE is 'E'..Pls advise how E is correct ans

Premise: There are 15% more gun owners in Metroville.
Conclusion: Difference in gun ownership has resulted in 23% fewer homicides in Clarksville than Metroville.

D. Number of criminals in Metroville <= Number of criminals in Clarksville. But we already know that there are 15% more gun owners in Metroville. The number of criminals is irrelevant to the argument. Fewer criminals may commit more crime since more criminals have gun ownership in Metroville.

E. Clarksville does not have significantly better emergency medical services than Metroville. - Correct.
Negate E: Clarksville has significantly better emergency medical services than Metroville. --> Medical services are responsible for fewer homicides and not gun ownership --> Provides an alternate reason to negate the conclusion.

Conclusion: The difference in gun ownership is the reason for 23% fewer homicides in Clarksville than Metroville.

A)Most violent crimes in Metroville is connected to groups of organized criminals that do not operate in Clarksville
This statement says that criminals in Metroville do not operate in Clarksville. So? This doesn't bridge the gap.

B)Fire ammunition is easy to obtain in Clarksville than Metroville
Out of Scope.

C) Clarksville and Metroville are far apart that crime in one does not affect the other
Negation doesn't help. - Fail.

D)The number of criminals in Metroville are not larger in number than the number in Clarksville.
We are concerned about the number of Crimes and not the Criminals. Therefore, this option is going pout of Scope.

E) Clarksville does not have significantly better emergency medical services than Metroville.
A Better Emergency Medical Service aptly provides an alternate explanation for the difference in the Number of Homicides and negating it helps to consolidate the conclusion.

For option E:

The Conclusion is :- Clarksville have lower homocides compared to Metroville, correct?

for Option E, it says Clarkville does not have significantly better Emergency Medical Services than Metroville.

My Initial thought would be:

Clarkville have lower homocides compared to Metroville, because Clarkville does not have significantly better Emergency Medical Services.

which i find this illogical.

Posted from my mobile device

Logic why E is correct. A is irrelevant. B weakens.
Now if we go by negation principle, we have to find the option, the negation of which will weaken the argument. So, what is the argument? Is it "Clarksburg is having 23% lower homicide rates than Metroville?" Absolutely No. The complete argument which we need to weaken by the negated option is "Clarksburg is having 23% lower rate because Metroville is having 15% higher guns". So, the option (after negation) which would prove that Clarksburg can have lower rates not because of lesser guns but because of some other reason... that option would be our winner.
Only E gives us that. Negation of E says..."Hospitals in Clarksburg are nearby in the city". If this is true, then obviously, the violent crimes victims would get quick treatment and homicides (death) would be less. That means, its the hospitals that reduced the number in Clarksburg, not the lesser number of guns that saved the people of Clarksburg. Thus, our argument is weakened. Hence E. You can check for C and D similarly and find that none of them weakens the argument like this. They both, in fact, dont touch the gun part at all while attacking the argument.

GMATNinja egmat @EMPOWERgmat gmatwhiz

I'm really unable to make any logical connection of (E) with the argument. Can you please provide the solution? This came up in my Manhattan Mock.

Isn’t the option E completely out of scope? I guess we have a set boundary in assumption questions i.e. we have to stay within the scope of argument. If we go beyond that boundary then we can have millions of assumptions options that we can make.
I would eliminate E at the very first go, could end up with C if i am bound to answer.

Posted from my mobile device

Hello expert,
I don’t think any of the choice including E is a good assumption. Negate E: Clarksville have better emergency medical services than Metroville, but if the victim has already been dead when the homicide is founded by police, E won't break the conclusion and become irrelevant.
Need your ideas and much thanks.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.