It is currently 20 Nov 2017, 01:24

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Before Paul & Pret throw me out for overposting, i

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 582

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Location: Chicago
Before Paul & Pret throw me out for overposting, i [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Jan 2006, 15:48
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (00:01) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Before Paul & Pret throw me out for overposting, i better stop :-D

The police in Jamestown, Indiana have introduced a new crime prevention policy that includes random stopping of drivers, searching of houses, outlawing of guns, and other

strict measures. While the constitutionality of this policy is debatable, the positive results of it are obvious, because crime has dropped 40% in one year.
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the conclusion of the argument above?

A) Prior to the establishment of the new crime prevention policy, the crime rate in Jamestown was already relatively low.

B) Within a year after the establishment of the new policy, the population of Jamestown dropped by 50%.

C) In another city, the same crime prevention tactics only reduced crime by 2%.

D) During the year prior to the establishment of the new policy, only two persons had committed murder in Jamestown.

E) Within a year after the establishment of the crime prevention policy, there was a 50% increase in police brutality cases.

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Location: New York
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Jan 2006, 16:19
B.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2892

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 0

Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Jan 2006, 17:53
I think B

B is the another cause (instead of stated) for the results.
_________________

SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 713

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

Location: Madrid
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Jan 2006, 23:22
B it is!
_________________

IE IMBA 2010

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

Current Student
User avatar
B
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5201

Kudos [?]: 437 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Jan 2006, 23:43
Agreed on (B).

***C is the trap answer always used by GMAC to deceive us. Most out of town/country/similiar comparisons are ususally out of scope and therefore incorrect.

Remember this: Out of town = out of scope

Kudos [?]: 437 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 582

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Location: Chicago
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jan 2006, 00:12
Why not E guys..
Think of a scenario where in Police brutality cases have increased and this has led to fear among the criminals due to which the crime rates have gone down..
This gives us another cause that the new law is not responsible for the decrease in crime..
Anything wrong with my logic???

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Current Student
User avatar
B
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5201

Kudos [?]: 437 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jan 2006, 00:22
andy_gr8 wrote:
Why not E guys..
Think of a scenario where in Police brutality cases have increased and this has led to fear among the criminals due to which the crime rates have gone down..
This gives us another cause that the new law is not responsible for the decrease in crime..
Anything wrong with my logic???


Perhaps there could have been a 50% increase in police brutality rates, but such statistics could have been offset by a 200% decrease in burgaries and a 700% decrease in armed robberies.

Also, consider that maybe just 2 police officers were assaulted in the year prior to introducing the draconian "big brother" measures. That equates to only 3 officers getting punched in the jaw most probably due to the mounting frustration of humiliated Jamestown residents. 8-)

OA please.

Kudos [?]: 437 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 582

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Location: Chicago
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jan 2006, 21:34
hmm got ur point...
OA is ofcourse B..welldone guys

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

  [#permalink] 15 Jan 2006, 21:34
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Before Paul & Pret throw me out for overposting, i

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.