GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 22 Apr 2019, 07:14

### 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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2252
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)

### Show Tags

12 May 2017, 11:21
4
10
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

50% (01:41) correct 50% (01:42) wrong based on 522 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

According to a recent report published by the Crime Bureau, the number of murders in the city has increased by over 20% in the last year over the previous year. One way to rein in the rising murder rate is by holding authorized gun dealers responsible for selling weapons to individuals with criminal records. Clearly, if these dealers are more selective while selling guns, there will be a significant decline in the number of fatalities.
Which of the following statements makes the argument invalid?
A.Individuals without criminal records commit murders.
B.Authorized gun dealers cannot differentiate between individuals with and without criminal records.
C.Gun dealers are driven only by profit maximization motives.
D.Almost in all the murders in the city, a gun is the weapon used to commit the crime.
E.Current laws do not regulate the sale of dangerous weapons such as guns in the city.

_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful
Director
Joined: 14 Nov 2014
Posts: 624
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.76

### Show Tags

12 May 2017, 11:48
2
Torn between A and B ..
Selected A finally..

Posted from my mobile device
Chat Moderator
Joined: 07 Mar 2016
Posts: 50

### Show Tags

12 May 2017, 12:04
Torn between A and B, ended up selecting B. The argument is based on the gun store owners being selective. Choice "A" doesn't deal with the gun owner being more selective as to whom guns are sold to. Only answer choice "B" deals with the gun store owner having to be selective.

"Individuals without crime records commit murders" - this does not deal with the gun store owner having to be selective.
_________________
...once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right...
Senior PS Moderator
Joined: 26 Feb 2016
Posts: 3386
Location: India
GPA: 3.12

### Show Tags

12 May 2017, 12:38
1
Clearly, the conclusion of the argument is
if these dealers are more selective while selling guns, there will be a significant decline in the number of fatalities.

Of the available answer choices, Choice C,D and E are irrelevant to say the least.
Option A is a generic statement which is not closely linked to the conclusion and hence cannot make the argument invalid.
Option B, if negated can smash the conclusion and hence render the argument invalid and is hence, the correct choice
_________________
You've got what it takes, but it will take everything you've got
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2012
Posts: 306
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V35
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V38
GPA: 3.81
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

13 May 2017, 02:13
Why not D? If we negate D - None of the crimes committed in the city are committed with a gun. Hence even if the authorized gun seller discriminates the people based on the criminal records, there wont be any impact on the Crime rate.
_________________
Citius, Altius, Fortius
Senior Manager
Status: You have to have the darkness for the dawn to come
Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 289
Daboo: Sonu
GMAT 1: 590 Q49 V20
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V38

### Show Tags

13 May 2017, 10:17
Skywalker18 wrote:
According to a recent report published by the Crime Bureau, the number of murders in the city has increased by over 20% in the last year over the previous year. One way to rein in the rising murder rate is by holding authorized gun dealers responsible for selling weapons to individuals with criminal records. Clearly, if these dealers are more selective while selling guns, there will be a significant decline in the number of fatalities.
Which of the following statements makes the argument invalid?
A.Individuals without criminal records commit murders.
B.Authorized gun dealers cannot differentiate between individuals with and without criminal records.
C.Gun dealers are driven only by profit maximization motives.
D.Almost in all the murders in the city, a gun is the weapon used to commit the crime.
E.Current laws do not regulate the sale of dangerous weapons such as guns in the city.

I think B must be the answer
argument says
More selective--- decline in fatalities
Option B says dealer don't have the ability to select
_________________
You have to have the darkness for the dawn to come.

Give Kudos if you like my post
Manager
Joined: 24 Jan 2017
Posts: 142
GMAT 1: 640 Q50 V25
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.48

### Show Tags

Updated on: 04 Jul 2017, 02:05
TheMechanic wrote:
Why not D? If we negate D - None of the crimes committed in the city are committed with a gun. Hence even if the authorized gun seller discriminates the people based on the criminal records, there wont be any impact on the Crime rate.

Hi, I would like to give some thoughts. Hope you find it helpful.

First of all, negation technique is highly recommended for assumption questions, not other types of questions.

Second, just read your reasoning again. You are treating this question as an assumption, aren't you? (With an assumption question, an option is correct when its negation totally destroy the solution). Yes, that reasoning should be applied to assumption type only. In fact, however, this is a weaken question.

Lastly, well I think your negation for option (D) is not correct.

This is original option (D):
D.Almost in all the murders in the city, a gun is the weapon used to commit the crime.

Intuitively, "almost" usually refers to a number larger than 50%. For example, your team has 3 tasks of equal workload, one of which is assigned to you. Can u say that u are responsible for almost team's tasks? No!

Therefore, negation of option (D) should be: In no murder / in a few murders in the city, a gun is the weapon used to commit the crime.

2 above cases of negations can result in different results, as follows:
"In no murder in the city, a gun is the weapon used to commit the crime." --> No murderer uses guns, then the proposal will not cut down the number of fatalities.

"In a few murders in the city, a gun is the weapon used to commit the crime." --> Some murderers, though not many, use guns to commit crime. Therefore, the initiative targeting individuals with criminal records can lead to a decline in the number of fatalities.

Should u have any concern, just response

Originally posted by Lucy Phuong on 03 Jul 2017, 23:42.
Last edited by Lucy Phuong on 04 Jul 2017, 02:05, edited 1 time in total.
Intern
Joined: 05 Apr 2017
Posts: 4

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2017, 00:55
Skywalker18 wrote:
According to a recent report published by the Crime Bureau, the number of murders in the city has increased by over 20% in the last year over the previous year. One way to rein in the rising murder rate is by holding authorized gun dealers responsible for selling weapons to individuals with criminal records. Clearly, if these dealers are more selective while selling guns, there will be a significant decline in the number of fatalities.
Which of the following statements makes the argument invalid?
A.Individuals without criminal records commit murders.
B.Authorized gun dealers cannot differentiate between individuals with and without criminal records.
C.Gun dealers are driven only by profit maximization motives.
D.Almost in all the murders in the city, a gun is the weapon used to commit the crime.
E.Current laws do not regulate the sale of dangerous weapons such as guns in the city.

One way to rein in the rising murder rate is by holding authorized gun dealers responsible for selling weapons to individuals with criminal records.
Option A is not relevant because if individuals without criminal records commit murders, then, according to the argument, the dealers cannot be held responsible for selling weapons to the murderers. (since, the murderers did not have a criminal record prior to the murders)

Hence, B
Manager
Joined: 24 Jan 2017
Posts: 142
GMAT 1: 640 Q50 V25
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.48

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2017, 02:37
My reasoning to eliminate option (A)

A. Individuals without criminal records commit murders.

(A) is totally irrelevant, because the option focuses on "Individuals without criminal records", while the proposal deals with gun usage of individuals with criminal records. They are 2 distinct groups. It does not matter whether the proposal can reduce number of non-criminal record people, because after all, what we care is whether the initiative can help prevent people with criminal records from using guns.

For examples:
In order to cut down student's number of hours spent on video games, teachers suggest that male students engage in weekly social activities. The argument "female students play video games" does not have any impact on viability of the teachers' idea. Girls play video games, so do boys. If some boys spend less time playing, the total number of students' hours on video games will decrease accordingly.

Only if someone argues "ONLY female students play video games", then yes, the initiative will be likely to lose its ground.
Manager
Joined: 18 Jun 2017
Posts: 59

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2017, 04:16
If Option B is true then there is no means to prevent the crime by using guns, however the option A also assumes individual without criminal records commit murder then how would the conclusion authorize drawn on gun sellers being seelctive about the customers without crime records be considered valid or effective.
Intern
Status: Self Redemption
Affiliations: Open
Joined: 22 Jul 2014
Posts: 11
Umar: Firdaus
GPA: 3.45

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2017, 12:24
GMATNinja
which one of the following choices make the argument invalid?
- In above replies, discussion has been about the assumption. Dont the question stem asks to make argument invalid/weaken?

Option D - It looks like assumption.
Option B - Weakens - correct choice.

Manager
Joined: 02 Feb 2016
Posts: 88
GMAT 1: 690 Q43 V41

### Show Tags

Updated on: 03 Sep 2017, 05:17
There are multiple assumptions within the OA for this question, not to mention several more assumptions in the stem that go unaddressed.

1. Individuals with past criminal record are more like to have contributed to this crime increase.
2. The percentage increase in the murders is actually not only a proportional increase within the total crime number.
3. Guns are mostly used for the past murders and also in the murders in that 20% increase range.

Option B takes for granted that it is indeed individuals with criminal records that have been significantly more responsible for the past murders and also the murder increase. In my opinion, this is not an air-tight assumption question stem. There has to be a statement in the stem that provides support to taking this fact about individuals with past criminal records for granted. Then, option B would make more sense.

Correction: This is question was stored in the "assumption" question type category. Thus, the analysis given above is from the perspective of considering this question an assumption question.

Originally posted by TheMastermind on 14 Jul 2017, 04:38.
Last edited by TheMastermind on 03 Sep 2017, 05:17, edited 1 time in total.
Current Student
Joined: 23 Jul 2015
Posts: 152

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2017, 05:54
Torn between A and B. I think both choices to a varying degree weakens the argument.

However, in reviewing both choices, I could come up with few situations in which A will not weaken the argument as much as B does.
1. how did these individuals committed murders? Gun, knife, martial arts?
2. How much do these individuals contribute to the increase in number of murders? 1%, 10%, 60%?

IMO B
Manager
Joined: 27 Jan 2016
Posts: 134
Schools: ISB '18
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2017, 10:29
Skywalker18 wrote:
According to a recent report published by the Crime Bureau, the number of murders in the city has increased by over 20% in the last year over the previous year. One way to rein in the rising murder rate is by holding authorized gun dealers responsible for selling weapons to individuals with criminal records. Clearly, if these dealers are more selective while selling guns, there will be a significant decline in the number of fatalities.
Which of the following statements makes the argument invalid?
A.Individuals without criminal records commit murders.
B.Authorized gun dealers cannot differentiate between individuals with and without criminal records.
C.Gun dealers are driven only by profit maximization motives.
D.Almost in all the murders in the city, a gun is the weapon used to commit the crime.
E.Current laws do not regulate the sale of dangerous weapons such as guns in the city.

A) What percentage of people commiting murders have criminal records?
If only 1% of the people commiting murders do not have criminal records, the conclusion is valid, because if you avoid selling weapons to 99% of the people commiting murders i,e having criminal records, the murder rate can be drastically reduced. On the other hand, if 99% of the people commiting murders are the ones who do not have criminal record, then the conclusion does not hold true, because, we are avoiding the sale of the weapons to only 1% of the criminals.
Hence Option A is incorrect due to dual possibilty.

B) Destroys the conclusion. If the owners are unable to differentiate between two categories, there is no point in telling them to be selective.
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1533
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64

### Show Tags

22 Nov 2017, 17:11
what is the source of this question?
B is correct b/c it directly links with the argument.
Intern
Joined: 09 Oct 2016
Posts: 3

### Show Tags

27 Nov 2017, 11:30
Its already given as premise that authorized dealers should be responsible for selling weapon to person with criminal record.( assuming premises goes unchallenged in GMAT). Also acc. to conclusion=> significant decline will occur in nu. of fatalaties by doing so.....
Now to weaken this we can take into account individuals who did not have criminal record because such people can still keep a good number of murders.
Intern
Joined: 11 Jul 2018
Posts: 16
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2019, 02:31
Why not option E can be considered? Because, if the laws cannot regulate the sale of guns, then the conclusion that gun sellers' responsibility is nullified right?
Display posts from previous: Sort by