To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 20 Jan 2017, 17:48

### 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

# To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1415
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 174 [1] , given: 0

To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Aug 2006, 12:24
1
KUDOS
14
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

33% (02:30) correct 68% (01:45) wrong based on 483 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I propose that we pass new legislation banning the sell of handguns to anyone with criminal record. Such a law would require gun retailers to perform background checks on potential customers thereby lengthening the time needed to purchase a firearm while also keeping guns out of the hands of known ex-criminals. This proposal will result in fewer violent crimes and produce safer inner-city communities.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion above?

(A) the goal of gun control legislation is to reduce the number of easily accessible firearms

(B) ex-criminals who commit violent crimes generally do so with a firearm

(C) a rise in violent crime and violence can be the result of the availability of firearms to ex-criminals

(D) most ex-criminals who purchase guns do so illegally

(E) any legislation restricting gun sells to ex-criminals would result in a reduction of the number of firearms available in most inner cities

[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by Vyshak on 25 Jul 2016, 03:38, edited 1 time in total.
If you have any questions
you can ask an expert
New!
Intern
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 21
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Followers: 0

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

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Aug 2006, 13:14
Why not B?

ex-criminals will be prevented from buying firearms by the new legislation so they won't be able to commit crimes at least with firearms and there will be fewer crimes.

However, C also looks like logical. But "can be" is a little confusing. If we take that "can be" is decreasing the strength of the argument (itself), then B is the answer.

Last edited by Eren on 03 Aug 2006, 13:52, edited 1 time in total.
CEO
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2911
Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008
Followers: 24

Kudos [?]: 273 [0], given: 0

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Aug 2006, 13:48
A, D and E are out of scope.

Tough choice between B and C.

Even though C is also logically strengthening the argument but B is the strengthening more than C.

So finally I go with B.
_________________

SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008

Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 382
Location: TX
Followers: 1

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

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Aug 2006, 14:54
B it is .

Both B and C strengthen the argument but C does it to a lesser extent than B.

B says 'generally do so' which is near to being certain.
C says 'can be' which means could be , may be but not certain to same extent as B.
SVP
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 2304
Schools: Darden
Followers: 43

Kudos [?]: 475 [0], given: 0

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Aug 2006, 15:29
I think it's E. The passages states that the purpose of the handgun legislation is 'to counter the escalating violence of inner cities'. The question asks which statement would most strengthen the argument if true. If E is true, then the legislation would result in a reduction of the number of firearms in most inner cities. I believe this accomplished the goal as stated in the passage.
Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 755
Followers: 1

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

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Aug 2006, 16:17
u2lover wrote:
To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I propose that we pass new legislation banning the sell of handguns to anyone with criminal record. Such a law would require gun retailers to perform background checks on potential customers thereby lengthening the time needed to purchase a firearm while also keeping guns out of the hands of known ex-criminals. This proposal will result in fewer violent crimes and produce safer inner-city communities.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion above?

(A) the goal of gun control legislation is to reduce the number of easily accessible firearms

(B) ex-criminals who commit violent crimes generally do so with a firearm

(C) a rise in violent crime and violence can be the result of the availability of firearms to ex-criminals

(D) most ex-criminals who purchase guns do so illegally

(E) any legislation restricting gun sells to ex-criminals would result in a reduction of the number of firearms available in most inner cities

B for me.
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 352
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 1

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Aug 2006, 20:47
I'll go with C.
C makes it clear that ex-criminals are responsible for the rise in crimes, B misses this point.
SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1737
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 78 [0], given: 0

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Aug 2006, 21:16
Its a tough call between B and C

What tilted the favour to B, was the mention of rise in violet crimes in C.
The conclusion is "proposal will result in fewer violent crimes and produce safer inner-city communities. "

B states that violet crimes are commited by ex criminals with firearms.
Hence if we take out the firarms from them, there will be a reduction in violent crimes.

C means that if we take out the guns ..... the crime rate will remain constant not rise..... but that is not the conclusion.
Manager
Joined: 12 Jun 2006
Posts: 69
Followers: 1

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

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Aug 2006, 23:23
B for me.

ex-criminals who commit violent crimes generally do so with a firearm - lesser the firearms available to ex-criminals, lesser the violent crimes.
_________________

Hema

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2004
Posts: 329
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [1] , given: 0

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2006, 02:16
1
KUDOS
u2lover wrote:
To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I propose that we pass new legislation banning the sell of handguns to anyone with criminal record. Such a law would require gun retailers to perform background checks on potential customers thereby lengthening the time needed to purchase a firearm while also keeping guns out of the hands of known ex-criminals. This proposal will result in fewer violent crimes and produce safer inner-city communities.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion above?

(B) ex-criminals who commit violent crimes generally do so with a firearm

(C) a rise in violent crime and violence can be the result of the availability of firearms to ex-criminals

I would say C.... B says that "ex-criminals who commit violent crimes generally do so with a firearm".... so what if they have the firearms or procure them illegally...

C states a reason that rise is directly related to "availability of firearms to ex-criminals" ... So curbing this will reduce the crime...

Also the argument starts with To counter the escalating violence of inner cities so even if the crime rate is kept constant, that would be fine... C will help to curb it officially

________________________________________________________

I might be wrong but then this is what I make out of this....[/b]
Intern
Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 17
Followers: 0

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

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2006, 04:49
what is the OA? I would go with C
Director
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 714
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2006, 06:35
I will go for E.

In my opinion, legislation will not allow crimes to do purchase and its background check will not let danger people(who are not officially declared) to do shopping. Overall background process also slow down the sale.
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1473
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 13

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2006, 10:11
C for me. It is in fact a key assumption for the argument, which is that banning sale of fire arms to known criminals will result in fewer violent crimes - what does this depend on? that firearms AID in Violence as stated in C.

Now Negating C - firearms with ex-criminals do NOT aid in violence, implying that the presence of fire arms with ex criminals would make no difference to the Violence, will kill the argument.

B is limited in scope because it talks about the use (read utility) of firearms in committing crimes which is not so big a deal in this case.
VP
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1415
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 0

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2006, 15:59
like many here, I picked B, but OA is C
VP
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1415
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 0

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2006, 19:12
OE:

Only Choice C draws a direct link b/w the goal of the proposed legislation (a reduction of violence in inner-city communities) and the actions taken by the legislation (restricting sells of firearms to ex-criminals).

While Choice B seems similar to Choice C, Choice B ties crime to firearms. Choice C ties crime to availability of firearms. Since the legislation will only restrict the availability of firearms by restricting legal retail sells only Choice C directly strengthens the conclusion.

sorry for typos if any... can't copy and paste this one
Manager
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 113
Location: London
Followers: 1

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

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2006, 03:13
Tricky. Agree with C.
Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5238
Followers: 25

Kudos [?]: 377 [0], given: 0

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Aug 2006, 03:16
u2lover wrote:
OE:

Only Choice C draws a direct link b/w the goal of the proposed legislation (a reduction of violence in inner-city communities) and the actions taken by the legislation (restricting sells of firearms to ex-criminals).

While Choice B seems similar to Choice C, Choice B ties crime to firearms. Choice C ties crime to availability of firearms. Since the legislation will only restrict the availability of firearms by restricting legal retail sells only Choice C directly strengthens the conclusion.

sorry for typos if any... can't copy and paste this one

Additionally, choice (B) assumes that all ex-criminals are guilty of committing violent crimes. That means anybody convicted of even a misdamenanor like drunk driving would be considered a threat to society if they possessed a gun.

(C) is the best choice here.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10534
Followers: 919

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2016, 01:06
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.
Manager
Joined: 29 May 2016
Posts: 96
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 176

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2016, 22:32
problem is "escalating violence of inner cities"
solution is :- banning the sell of handguns to anyone with criminal record
and gun dealers to perform check
this will 1) buy time and help stop selling gun to anyone with criminal record

Assumption :- 1) Gun dealers are the only choice to get firearms and keep gun out of reach. What any with criminal records will get this gun from somewhere else.
2) banning handguns to ex criminals will be related to escalating violence of inner cities"
B and C
B is too generic, it only tells us the nature of criminals who commit crime. It does not tell us anything how it is related to increased violence in inner city
Intern
Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Posts: 18
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 3

To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2016, 02:21
People are more confused with options B and C.

The argument starts with the line, "to counter the escalating violence" and propose banning the sell of handguns to anyone with criminal record. Why should someone propose banning specifically to ex-crimers? Because they feel or have statistics which states that the ex-crimers were responsible for the violence. Otherwise they would have proposed a BGC for everyone who wants to have a handgun.

Hence C is the clear winner.

(B) ex-criminals who commit violent crimes generally do so with a firearm

(C) a rise in violent crime and violence can be the result of the availability of firearms to ex-criminals
To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I   [#permalink] 20 Aug 2016, 02:21

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 27 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Counter premise and Counter conclusion in an argument 0 05 Feb 2016, 22:06
8 Anthropologist: Violence is an extreme form of aggression an 8 08 Jul 2014, 07:13
4 Escalating worldwide demand for corn is expected to cause th 6 27 Oct 2012, 04:37
When I read a novel set in a city I know well, I must see 3 18 Oct 2009, 18:54
21 Escalating worldwide demand for corn has led to a sharp 17 27 Jan 2008, 02:03
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 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®.