A recent report determined that although only 15 percent of a town’s

15% people live in low income areas.
20% of all criminals sentenced lived in low income areas.

Conclusion: People who live in low income areas are more likely to commit criminal activities than those who do not.

Now, there is a gap in our premises and the conclusion. The premises talk about criminals sentenced. The conclusion talks about "people more likely to commit criminal activities". There is a gap between committing crimes and being sentenced. The argument assumes that the two are the same. So we need to look for an option that tells us that all those who commit crimes have the same probability of getting sentenced, not higher (to account for the higher %age of sentencing).

A. People who live in low income areas are less likely to be prosecuted than people who do not.

This says people of income areas are less likely to be prosecuted. But we need the probabilities to be the same.

B. The people living in low income areas cannot afford the costly litigation expenses and their prosecution is more likely to convert into a sentence.

Again, this says that people of income areas are more likely to be sentenced. But we need the probabilities to be the same.

C. On committing a crime, the people living in low income areas are not more likely to be sentenced than people not living in the same.

This says they are not more likely to be sentenced (so the probability is the same). It is logical that they will not be less likely to be sentenced because they are from low income areas. Hence, this is the correct assumption.

D. The number of criminal incidents in high income areas was lower than that in low income areas.

Where the crimes happened is irrelevant. We need to focus on where the criminals resided.

E. Many of the criminals sentenced were sentenced more than once in the time period covered in the report

Irrelevant.

Answer (C)