It is currently 21 Feb 2018, 09:05

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# According to futuristic writings in the 1960s, robots would

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4680
According to futuristic writings in the 1960s, robots would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2012, 16:06
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

91% (01:01) correct 9% (01:21) wrong based on 311 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

According to futuristic writings in the 1960s, robots would soon drastically reduce crime. With night vision and ability to detect the chemicals involved in ballistics, such robots could be programed to paralyze anyone roaming the street at night with a gun: virtually all criminals fit that description. These criminals would be incapacitated and thus unable to resist an easy arrest.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly indicates that the logic of the prediction is flawed?
(A) Such robots would need to be charged during the daytime.
(B) Since policemen carry guns, the robots would incapacitate them just as efficiently as they incapacitate criminals
(C) Because these robots could pose a hazard to cars at night, special barriers would have to be constructed between the paths of the robots and the lanes of traffic.
(D) It's not obvious that reducing the number of criminals will always be beneficial.
(E) If the proposal plan were successful, it might ultimate result in a smaller and more efficient police force.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Manager
Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 81
Concentration: Accounting, Finance
GMAT Date: 09-08-2012
GPA: 3

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2012, 19:12
+1 B

B. If we have robots roaming the streets at night paralyzing anyone with guns then police will also be paralyzed and criminals without guns will be able to roam free.
_________________

Thanks = +1 Kudos

Study from reliable sources!!

Thursdays with Ron: http://www.manhattangmat.com/thursdays-with-ron.cfm

Gmat Prep Questions:
CR http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmatprepsc-105446.html
SC http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmatprepsc-105446.html

Director
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 534
Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2012, 20:34
+1 for (B)
Robots will start harming the gun-holding policemen,who are working for crime reduction too,because robots would not be figure out the difference between criminals and policemen/or anyone else for that matter.
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

Intern
Joined: 10 Apr 2012
Posts: 30
Location: Venezuela
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GPA: 3.07

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2012, 08:15
I usually break the arguments apart, seperating the premise from the conclusion.
Concerning the argument you posted i get:
Premise: With night vision and ability to detect the chemicals involved in ballistics, such robots could be programed to paralyze anyone roaming the street at night with a gun: virtually all criminals fit that description. These criminals would be incapacitated and thus unable to resist an easy arrest.
Conclusion: robots would soon drastically reduce crime

So, the only answer choice that could express a flaw in the prediction (the prediction being that "robots would soon drastically reduce crime") is answer choice A, because if the robots are charging at day time and are only effective at night time, then crime rates will consequently increase in day time, weakening the conclusion that "robots would soon drastically reduce crime".

I did not chose B because this answer choice is reffering to the premise of the argument instead of attacking the conclusion.

Nevertheless, I feel I am a bit confused. Could someone please clear this up for me.
Manager
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 233

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2012, 06:52
tried to Weaken
Conclusion: These criminals would be incapacitated and thus unable to resist an easy arrest.
Premise1: robots could be programed to paralyze anyone roaming the street at night with a gun:virtually all criminals fit that description

(A) Such robots would need to be charged during the daytime.
--> out of scope (charging the robots has nothing to do with Arrests, also robots can work on alternal source of enery such as solar)

(B) Since policemen carry guns, the robots would incapacitate them just as efficiently as they incapacitate criminals
--> correct: should the flow as police also carry guns and robots will not differentiate between police and criminals, as the premise states that "anyone roaming the street at night with a gun"

(C) Because these robots could pose a hazard to cars at night, special barriers would have to be constructed between the paths of the robots and the lanes of traffic.
--> out of scope

(D) It's not obvious that reducing the number of criminals will always be beneficial.
--> out of scope

(E) If the proposal plan were successful, it might ultimate result in a smaller and more efficient police force.
--> this strengthen the conclusion
Director
Status: Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 17 Apr 2013
Posts: 589
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 2: 750 Q51 V41
GMAT 3: 790 Q51 V49
GPA: 3.3
According to futuristic writings in the 1960s, robots would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 May 2014, 02:56
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
According to futuristic writings in the 1960s, robots would soon drastically reduce crime. With night vision and ability to detect the chemicals involved in ballistics, such robots could be programed to paralyze anyone roaming the street at night with a gun: virtually all criminals fit that description. These criminals would be incapacitated and thus unable to resist an easy arrest.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly indicates that the logic of the prediction is flawed?

1. Such robots would need to be charged during the daytime.
2. Since policemen carry guns, the robots would incapacitate them just as efficiently as they incapacitate criminals
3. Because these robots could pose a hazard to cars at night, special barriers would have to be constructed between the paths of the robots and the lanes of traffic.
4. It's not obvious that reducing the number of criminals will always be beneficial.
5. If the proposal plan were successful, it might ultimate result in a smaller and more efficient police force.
_________________

Like my post Send me a Kudos It is a Good manner.
My Debrief: http://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-score-750-and-750-i-moved-from-710-to-189016.html

VP
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 1358
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: 1540 Q800 V740
Re: According to futuristic writings in the 1960s, robots would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 May 2014, 05:57
A) Even if the robots need to be charged during daytime, it still does not affect their effectiveness at night and therefore their ability to reduce crime. INCORRECT.
B) If the robots incapacitate the police (which fights crime), this would aid crime too and put into doubt the assertion that crime would therefore necessarily fall overall. CORRECT.
C) There is no information given in the passage to suggest that building such lanes is a problem, therefore posing no obvious problem for the robots to tackle crime. INCORRECT.
D) Even if this is not beneficial in all manners possible, it will still reduce crime. INCORRECT.
E) We are not discussing the size of the police force here, but the effectiveness of the robots in fighting crime. INCORRECT.

(B) it is.
_________________

GyanOne | Top MBA Rankings and MBA Admissions Blog

Premium MBA Essay Review|Best MBA Interview Preparation|Exclusive GMAT coaching

Get a FREE Detailed MBA Profile Evaluation | Call us now +91 98998 31738

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10322
Re: According to futuristic writings in the 1960s, robots would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Apr 2016, 12:06
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.
SVP
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1904
Re: According to futuristic writings in the 1960s, robots would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Apr 2016, 01:01
honchos wrote:
According to futuristic writings in the 1960s, robots would soon drastically reduce crime. With night vision and ability to detect the chemicals involved in ballistics, such robots could be programed to paralyze anyone roaming the street at night with a gun: virtually all criminals fit that description. These criminals would be incapacitated and thus unable to resist an easy arrest.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly indicates that the logic of the prediction is flawed?

1. Such robots would need to be charged during the daytime.
2. Since policemen carry guns, the robots would incapacitate them just as efficiently as they incapacitate criminals
3. Because these robots could pose a hazard to cars at night, special barriers would have to be constructed between the paths of the robots and the lanes of traffic.
4. It's not obvious that reducing the number of criminals will always be beneficial.
5. If the proposal plan were successful, it might ultimate result in a smaller and more efficient police force.

Premise: Robots can stop criminals that are roaming with a gun at night.
In order to find a flaw, we need to prove that the robots will not help.
Option B just says the same by telling that the robots will incapacitate the policemen too as they also carry guns.
None of the other options even come close.

Correct Option: B
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 880
Re: According to futuristic writings in the 1960s, robots would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2017, 10:22
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1346
Re: According to futuristic writings in the 1960s, robots would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2017, 10:57
I'd think that police officers would stop carrying guns if these robots existed, since there's no obvious reason why they'd need them if all the criminals were incapacitated.

That might be an interesting way to pose the question - instead ask what a likely consequence of the introduction of the robots might be. It seems probable that law enforcement would disarm.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 1912
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: According to futuristic writings in the 1960s, robots would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2017, 10:04
According to futuristic writings in the 1960s, robots would soon drastically reduce crime. With night vision and ability to detect the chemicals involved in ballistics, such robots could be programed to paralyze anyone roaming the street at night with a gun: virtually all criminals fit that description. These criminals would be incapacitated and thus unable to resist an easy arrest.
Type - Flaw
Boil it down - criminals with guns would be incapacitated and thus unable to resist an easy arrest.

(A) Such robots would need to be charged during the daytime. - Irrelevant - we are only concerned about night time
(B) Since policemen carry guns, the robots would incapacitate them just as efficiently as they incapacitate criminals - Correct
(C) Because these robots could pose a hazard to cars at night, special barriers would have to be constructed between the paths of the robots and the lanes of traffic. - Irrelevant
(D) It's not obvious that reducing the number of criminals will always be beneficial. - Irrelevant -
(E) If the proposal plan were successful, it might ultimate result in a smaller and more efficient police force. - Incorrect - we do not need what might happen as a consequence

_________________

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

Re: According to futuristic writings in the 1960s, robots would   [#permalink] 15 Aug 2017, 10:04
Display posts from previous: Sort by