Aha! Classic GMAT trick. This is one of the many question types where they want you to compare apples to oranges.
In this case, 'crime' being the apples and 'crimes reported' being the oranges.
Argument theorizes that 'Installation of the CCTVs has lead to increase in crime'. Note that argument suggests causality. And it states premise 'crimes reported have increase'.
What's wrong? Crime rate can remain the same or even decrease despite of crimes reported increased. Maybe CCTVs are more useful as crimes went unreported in past but now they are being reported.
Answer choice C exactly says this.
That is your answer ladies and gentlemen.
If you like my answers, dont forget to upvote.
Su!
Bunuel
A year after the start an experiment to decrease crime in two high-crime subway stations by the installation of closed-circuit televisions, the experiment is being discontinued, city officials say the program has led to an increase in crime, citing the fact that following the installation, both stations showed increases in the number of crimes reported.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the claim of the city officials that the program has led to an increase in crime?
(A) The two subway stations had been chosen on the basis subway stations was higher than that of other high-crime subway stations not equipped with closed-circuit-television.
(B) The rate of increase in crimes reported for two subway stations was higher than that of other high-crime subway stations not equipped with closed-circuit television.
(C) The percentage of all crimes committed at the two subway stations that were reported rose as a result of increased instances of observations of crime on the closed-circuit televisions.
(D) The year in which the experiment was conducted was a year in which the total number of crimes reported in the city fell.
(E) Closed-circuit televisions installed in shops and stores throughout the city have proved to be useful in the prevention of shoplifting and burglaries.