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.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument given?

A. A single incident can't be taken as an example
B. We have to focus, here we are dealing with criminals, not public!
C. Strengthens the argument given
D. It distracts by saying there are two types of criminals caught, followed by description of their crimes.
E. Again far away from the topic, mostly deals with public.

Here is the Official explanation.

_________________

We have to strengthen the fact that transferring police officials from Traffic police to work on serious crimes will not be helpful in catching more criminals who have committed serious crimes.
Now option choice D talks about two different set of people does not help increase our belief that if the officers are transferred then would it result it catching more or fewer serious crime offenders.
This is the reason this answer choice is incorrect.

Hope this helps !!!

but doesn't D say that since the group of serious criminals is different between the ones that are driving and not driving, clearly eliminating traffic cops would create a situation where those serious criminals that are driving are not caught - thus, there would be less criminals caught BECAUSE the traffic cops were reassigned....

C is the correct choice - This suggests that people committing serious crimes often commit traffic violations as well, increasing the likelihood that traffic enforcement officers will stop to search their cars and find evidence of those crimes.
_________________

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. Incorrect - Shell game answer
B When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules. Incorrect - Out of scope
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. Correct - When cause (crime) occurs, effect (traffic rule violation) occurs
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. Incorrect - Opposite Ans.
E The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes. Incorrect - Out of scope

mike - Could you please explain option C :unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law:

Conclusion: Reducing the traffic enforcement is not going to help because criminals often use cars when engaged in the commission of serious crimes and the presence of the officials can make a significant difference.

Any idea that might go against the notion of the conclusion can be eliminated. Also, we have to protect the assumption that this argument has. The assumption is that the traffic police is capable of identifying those criminals and is willing to take action.

With this idea A can be eliminated because if the officer risks the violent confrontation he may be discouraged to take such action. That means there is still a lingering question of his capability and willingness to take action.
B talks about public, which we are not interested in.
D is out of scope because it doesn’t help in reinforcing the idea that reducing the traffic enforcement is not going to help.
E This options weaken the argument by saying that traffic police may not be needed at those places.

C is our answer. This strengthens the idea that reducing the traffic enforcement is not going to help because if these offenders of serious crimes consider traffic law as lesser constraints, they will be committing more such crimes of breaking the traffic laws and hence the traffic police will be needed at the time of the crime to catch them red handed.

We need to look for an answer that is connecting traffic violation and serious crimes. remember "the italian job 2003". if a traffic cop would have present at all those stops, all those crimes would not have been committed. but its a movie, any thing can happen. Point is that many people will think about committing a crime if traffic policeman is standing at every stop. option C is on same lines.

_________________