Question wrote:
Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a considerable number of officers from traffic enforcement to work on higher-priority, serious crimes. Reducing traffic enforcement for this reason would be counterproductive, however, in light of the tendency of criminals to use cars when engaged in the commission of serious crimes. An officer stopping a car for a traffic violation can make a search that turns up evidence of serious crime.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument given?
(A) An officer who stops a car containing evidence of the commission of a serious crime risks a violent confrontation, even if the vehicle was stopped only for a traffic violation.
(B) When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules.
(C) Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law.
(D) The offenders committing serious crimes who would be caught because of traffic violations are not the same group of individuals as those who would be caught if the arresting officers were reassigned from traffic enforcement.
(E) The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes.
Understanding the argument :
1. Police officials are considering reassigning the traffic police officers to more serious crime investigations
2. Reducing the traffic police officers to move them to the investigation of more serious crime investigations will be counterproductive - i.e. if the police officers are moved from their traffic duties to the investigation of serious crime, it will result in less productive output
3. Criminals who commit serious crimes tend to use cars when they engage in such crimes
4. These traffic police officers can investigate the cars of the criminals who committed serious crimes and find some helpful evidence
To churn it down,
>> conclusion: Traffic police officers should not be reassigned to any other job because by staying in their current role, they can help catch criminals who commit serious crimes
>> reasoning: Traffic officers will be able to search the vehicles of such criminals who commit serious crimes
Now we need to strengthen the argument, therefore we need to think how a traffic police officer can help catching the criminals who commit serious crimes when he/she is in his/her traffic police job.
(A) An officer who stops a car containing evidence of the commission of a serious crime risks a violent confrontation, even if the vehicle was stopped only for a traffic violation. - Well, if anything, this provides a reason for why the traffic police officers should move from their current role. Discard!
(B) When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules.
- This answer choice speaks about the general public. This answer choice suggests that if the police officers are moved away from their current duty as traffic police officers, there will be lesser scrutiny of traffic law violations and people will be more relaxed about breaking traffic laws. Yeah, that is quite a possibility, and it does tell why a police officer should not be moved, but it fails to address the main question - why a police officer should not move AND how could he help in catching criminals who commit serious crimes. Discard!
(C) Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law. - Hmmm! So, if criminals who commit serious crimes ignore the traffic crimes, they are at higher risk of getting pulled over by a traffic police officer. If the traffic police officer pulls over such a criminal, he will search the car. Searching the car might produce some evidence that could help the police further the investigation of the serious crime. Sounds reasonable! Note: It is not a 100% guarantee that any such scenario will happen. In strengthening questions, we are looking for anything that would contribute anywhere from 1% to 100% to support the conclusion of the author. Keep it!
(D) The offenders committing serious crimes who would be caught because of traffic violations are not the same group of individuals as those who would be caught if the arresting officers were reassigned from traffic enforcement. - The general public is divided into two categories: 1. those who break traffic rules, and 2. those who don't break the traffic rules. Those who break the traffic rules are pulled over by the traffic police officers. According to this answer choice, the set of general public who break traffic rules is different from the set of general public who commit serious crimes. Therefore, traffic police will not pull over the serious criminals. Unfortunately, in such a scenario, the police will definitely not be able to search the cars of the criminals who commit serious crimes. Discard!
(E) The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes. - This just states a fact! This does not provide any support to the conclusion.
Hence, the correct answer is (C) _________________