A lack of trust in one's neighbors leads to their lack of respect for

A lack of trust in one's neighbors leads to their lack of respect for the law. A new study provides compelling evidence for this. Neighborhoods in which people routinely lock their doors have higher burglary rates than neighborhoods in which people do not routinely lock their doors.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument

(A) treats something that is merely sufficient to produce a result as if it were necessary to produce that result - WRONG. Neither sufficient nor necessary. The built-up of the passage does not suggest such a thing.

(B) draws a moral conclusion from evidence that could only support a factual conclusion - WRONG. This is what we need to find i.e. which is what. What is moral conclusion and what is factual conclusion? BTW, Is there anything called factual conclusion? Facts can't be conclusion. A conclusion is based on facts.

(C) bases its conclusion on data that are contradictory - WRONG. It's not contradictory.

(D) asserts in a premise what it is trying to establish in its conclusion - WRONG. This is like B. This goes little more weird. How does an assertion precede conclusion when a conclusion establishing is like asserting.

(E) treats what could be the effect of something as if it were the cause of that thing - CORRECT. Causality tested in the passage that is what this choice elaborates. We are not sure whether that study is related to what is stated in the first sentence of the passage.
The author might be making this assumption that since there is a lack of trust among neighbors, they lock their house doors as burglary happen. This suggests neighbors do that without worrying about law. But it is equally possible that that study is responsible for neighbors locking their doors and losing trust. In this case the claim/argument that the lack of trust leading to lack of respect for the law falls apart. It can be either way.

Answer E.

What's the conclusion of the argument?
statement A: "A lack of trust in one's neighbors leads to their lack of respect for the law"
The evidence used to support this is the statement
statement B: "Neighborhoods in which people routinely lock their doors have higher burglary rates than neighborhoods in which people do not routinely lock their doors."

If we take a step back and think, Does statement A lead to statement B or statement B lead to statement A, its clear that lack of trust as mentioned in A leads to the conclusion of B. The argument has got it in reverse and thats why E is the right answer

The premise is:
not trusting your neighbor leads to burglary i.e making your area unsafe. when in reality if there are no burglaries in your area i.e it's safe, you can trust your neighbors and not lock your doors.
therefore the answer reversed the cause and effect in question.

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.