JarvisR 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.
Argument Construction
Situation Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning many officers from traffic enforcement to work on serious crimes. But criminals often drive when committing serious crimes, and police who stop cars for traffic violations can find evidence of those crimes.
Reasoning What additional information, when combined with the argument provided, would suggest that it would be counterproductive to reassign officers from traffic enforcement to work on serious crimes?
The argument implicitly reasons that because officers working on traffic enforcement can turn up evidence of serious crimes by searching cars that commit traffic violations, reassigning those officers would hinder police efforts to prevent serious crime, even if the officers were reassigned to work directly on serious crime. The argument could be strengthened by information suggesting that traffic enforcement may increase the probability that evidence relating to serious crimes will be discovered.
(C) Correct. This suggests that people committing serious crimes often commit traffic violations as well, increasing the likelihood that traffic enforcement officers will stop and search their cars and find evidence of those crimes.
Criminals, while committing crimes, use cars.
Traffic police can search when stopping a car for a traffic violation. They might find evidence of serious crime during search.
So, do not reassign traffic policemen to serious crime.
The argument depends on traffic policemen being able to find serious crime while carrying out their duty as traffic policemen. The argument will not make a lot of sense if those carrying out serious crime do not break traffic rules. Then they will not be stopped and searched and hence the argument falls apart.
What strengthens the argument? If something tells us that serious criminals often break traffic rules so they would be stopped for traffic offences. Then a search would be carried out and evidence found.
(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.
This tells us that criminals often break traffic rules while carrying out crime. Then it makes it more likely that traffic police will stop them.
So the argument makes sense that we shouldn't reassign traffic policemen to serious crime.
(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.
Violent confrontation is irrelevant.
(B) When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules.
We need a connect between traffic rule breaking and serious crime.
(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.
It doesn't matter whether the same individuals will be caught. Some kind of serious criminals will be caught.
(E) The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes.
Irrelevant whether the majority of people stopped will be serious criminals or a small fraction. We need to see how many criminals will be stopped.
Answer (C)
_________________
Karishma
Owner of Angles and Arguments
Check out my Blog Posts here: Blog
For Study Modules, click here: Study Modules
For Private Tutoring, contact us: Private Tutoring