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

It is currently 20 Oct 2014, 17:18

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

To decrease the number of crimes in city Y, the city's

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Mar 2009
Posts: 84
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

To decrease the number of crimes in city Y, the city's [#permalink] New post 27 Jun 2009, 21:39
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  25% (medium)

Question Stats:

71% (01:59) correct 29% (00:58) wrong based on 101 sessions
To decrease the number of crimes in city Y, the city's Police Commissioner proposed taking some police officers from low-crime districts of the city and moving them to high-crime districts of the city. His proposal is based on city Y crime data that show that the number of crimes in any district of the city decreases when additional police officers are moved into that district.

The Police Commissioner's proposal depends on which of the following assumptions?


(A) City X experienced a drastic reduction in crime after implementing a proposal similar to that proposed by the Police Commissioner of city Y.


(B) The severity of crimes committed in any district of the city decreases when additional police officers are moved into that district.


(C) The number of crimes committed in all high-crime districts of city Y is more than triple the number of crimes committed in all low-crime districts of city Y.


(D) There are more low-crime districts than high-crime districts in city Y.


(E) Districts of the city from which police officers are removed do not experience significant crime increases shortly after the removal of those officers.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by pqhai on 08 Aug 2013, 21:25, edited 1 time in total.
OA added
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 56
Schools: Anderson FEMBA
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 1

Re: NUmber of crimes in City Y [#permalink] New post 27 Jun 2009, 23:05
I would go with "E".

We know: (1) Police are trying to decrease crimes. (2) Propose to take police from low crime areas and move to high crime areas. (3) Study shows that additional police = decrease in crimes.

From the given info we can sort of guess that the issue with the plan is that by taking police away from low crime areas, they may in fact see an increase in crimes (b/c the new plan would take additional police away).
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 May 2009
Posts: 172
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 3

Re: NUmber of crimes in City Y [#permalink] New post 27 Jun 2009, 23:07
skim wrote:
To decrease the number of crimes in city Y, the city's Police Commissioner proposed taking some police officers from low-crime districts of the city and moving them to high-crime districts of the city. His proposal is based on city Y crime data that show that the number of crimes in any district of the city decreases when additional police officers are moved into that district.
The Police Commissioner's proposal depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) City X experienced a drastic reduction in crime after implementing a proposal similar to that proposed by the Police Commissioner of city Y.
(B) The severity of crimes committed in any district of the city decreases when additional police officers are moved into that district.
(C) The number of crimes committed in all high-crime districts of city Y is more than triple the number of crimes committed in all low-crime districts of city Y.
(D) There are more low-crime districts than high-crime districts in city Y.
(E) Districts of the city from which police officers are removed do not experience significant crime increases shortly after the removal of those officers.


I would have to go with (E). The goal is to decrease overall crime levels. If low-crime districts will become high-crime districts following the redeployment of cops, then there is no sense moving cops around, because the overall crime level will be unlikely to decrease.

Now a look at the the other answers:
(A) It certainly helps that there is precedence for success in this type of operation, but this particular plan's success does not depend on this assumption. The plan will automatically fall apart if it wasn't successful in city X.
(B) We're talking about the number of crimes, so I don't think severity has much relevance.
(C) Again, using the negation test (or whatever its called), if this wasn't true, the argument doesn't fall apart.
(D) Again, negation test suggests this doesn't necessary make the argument succeed or fail.

(E) is stronger than any other argument available.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 May 2013
Posts: 57
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 12

Re: To decrease the number of crimes in city Y, the city's [#permalink] New post 14 Jun 2013, 02:06
(A) City X experienced a drastic reduction in crime after implementing a proposal similar to that proposed by the Police Commissioner of city Y

if we negate these option choice

City X does not experienced a drastic reduction in crime after implementing a proposal similar to that proposed by the Police Commissioner of city Y

still argument will fall apart because argument clearly states that

"the number of crimes in any district of the city decreases when additional police officers are moved into that district. "

argument clearly uses term "any"
so how can option "A" be wrong..
it also plays a good role of strengthen question.
but after negating it is destroying conclusion as well.
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 838
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 611 [0], given: 197

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: To decrease the number of crimes in city Y, the city's [#permalink] New post 08 Aug 2013, 20:37
WarriorGmat wrote:
(A) City X experienced a drastic reduction in crime after implementing a proposal similar to that proposed by the Police Commissioner of city Y

if we negate these option choice

City X does not experienced a drastic reduction in crime after implementing a proposal similar to that proposed by the Police Commissioner of city Y

still argument will fall apart because argument clearly states that

"the number of crimes in any district of the city decreases when additional police officers are moved into that district. "

argument clearly uses term "any"
so how can option "A" be wrong..
it also plays a good role of strengthen question.
but after negating it is destroying conclusion as well.


if you negate option A:
City X does not experienced a drastic reduction in crime after implementing a proposal similar to that proposed by the Police Commissioner of city Y

CONCLUSION is there will be reduction in crime and not drastic reduction.
thats why this doesnt shatters the conclusion.

hope this helps
_________________

When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...



GMAT RCs VOCABULARY LIST: vocabulary-list-for-gmat-reading-comprehension-155228.html
learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat- ... assessment
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APt9ITygGss

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Jun 2013
Posts: 15
Followers: 0

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

Re: To decrease the number of crimes in city Y, the city's [#permalink] New post 08 Aug 2013, 22:15
WarriorGmat wrote:
argument clearly uses term "any"
so how can option "A" be wrong..
it also plays a good role of strengthen question.
but after negating it is destroying conclusion as well.


The reason that A is wrong is because it refers to City X, which was never mentioned in the paragraph. The question stem asks us to find the necessary assumption upon which the commissioner's policy for City Y is based. We have no idea about the circumstances of City X's implementation of a "similar" policy; it could be for other reasons that the policy had the intended effect. It really doesn't matter because the circumstances of City X are not necessary for the policy to work in City Y.

The necessary assumption in this case is clearly E, because unless the removal of the police from peaceful areas does not increase the crime rate in those areas, the policy will not work because crime will rise in the originally highly policed areas. In other words, the commissioner is making the necessary assumption that crime free areas will remain crime free, despite losing policing resources to crime filled areas.

Remember, every assumption question refers to a necessary assumption. That means without this assumption the argument will not stand.

A good test for determining necessity is to ask yourself "must this be the case?" Apply this simple method to answer choice A: must it be the case that for City Y's policy to work it also worked for City X? Clearly, this doesn't have to be the case. It is perfectly possible that the policy works in City Y and does not work in City X. Having established that answer choice A is not necessary, we can confidently eliminate it from our choices. If it isn't necessary to the argument, it isn't the correct answer. Apply the same method to E and you will realize that E is necessary for the commissioner's argument to stand.
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Nov 2008
Posts: 70
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 14 [1] , given: 1

Re: To decrease the number of crimes in city Y, the city's [#permalink] New post 30 Aug 2013, 00:52
1
This post received
KUDOS
The Police Commissioner's proposal hopes to decrease the number of crimes in
city Y by shifting police officers from low-crime to high-crime districts. His
proposal is based on data that demonstrate that crime decreases when
additional police officers are moved into a district. However, the data do not
mention anything about the effect on the districts from which the police officers
were removed. The commissioner's plan is based on the assumption that the
movement of police officers will not have any adverse effects on the low-crime
districts.
(A) While it is encouraging that a similar plan worked successfully in City X, this
fact is certainly not essential for the success of the plan in City Y. The cities may
be so different as to make the comparison meaningless.
(B) The police commissioner's proposal is focused solely on decreasing the
number of crimes in city Y. The severity of the crimes has no bearing on whether
the commissioner's proposal will succeed or not.
(C) The actual numerical distinction between high and low-crime areas of the city
is immaterial to the commissioner's proposal. For instance, if the number of
crimes committed in all high crime districts was only double (instead of more than
triple) the number of crimes committed in low crime districts, the proposal could
still be valid.
(D) It would be practically beneficial to the commissioner's plan if there were
more low crime than high crime districts in city Y. This would enable the
movement of police officers to every high crime district. However, this is not
necessary to achieve the commissioner's goal of decreasing the total number of
crimes in city Y. Even if there were more high-crime districts than low-crime
districts in city Y, police officers could still be shifted to some (though not all)
high-crime districts, and thereby possibly reduce the total number of crimes in
city Y.
(E) CORRECT. The police commissioner's proposal would not make sense if
districts of the city from which police officers are removed experience significant
crime increases shortly after the removal of those officers. This would at least
partially, if not fully, negate the reduction in the number of crimes in the highcrime
districts. This choice establishes that, in fact, the low-crime districts do
NOT suffer from significant crime increases after the removal of some officers--
an essential assumption upon which the commissioner's proposal depends.
Re: To decrease the number of crimes in city Y, the city's   [#permalink] 30 Aug 2013, 00:52
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 Experts publish their posts in the topic From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily carcass 16 13 Aug 2014, 10:38
A motorist travels from City X to City Y in 2 hours at an desiguy 7 06 Dec 2005, 12:29
In City Y last year, what was the ratio of the number of faisalt 3 20 Nov 2005, 14:10
The city has proposed a number of water treatment and chunjuwu 4 09 Feb 2005, 06:32
The city has proposed a number of water treatment and DLMD 6 07 Feb 2005, 23:41
Display posts from previous: Sort by

To decrease the number of crimes in city Y, the city's

  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®.