Citizen: Each year since 1970, a new record has been set for the numbe

I also chose D, what's wrong with D, please explain.

what's the difference between option C and E ? if option C is true, the rate would be bigger. i don't understand

Yes, C and E are pretty close; however

C. Murders and other violent crimes are more likely to be reported now than they were in 1970.

we cannot be sure that the rate will be bigger, we can say that is "likely" to be bigger; and moreover we do not know "how much" bigger.

But there is also another reason to pick E: E talks about murders only , C talks about murders and other violent crimes. So when we want to evaluate " In fact, the number of murder victims per 100 people has actually fallen slightly in the city since 1970." E is better.

Hope I've explained myself well.

I've been thinking about this question, and i change opinion. I think option C is wrong, because only E offers an alternative explanation about the decline of the rate, in order to deny the "merit" of the police. On the contrary option C SUPPORTS the city official's statement. Am i wrong ?

Hi LucasITA, I was just going to respond to you about that. Answer choice C says that things were much worse before, which is exactly what the city official is stating. Answer C is a strengthener of the city official. This is a 180° answer choice that can be confusing because of all the negation. However, logically, it says all the right things but points the needle in the wrong direction.

Thanks!
-Ron

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsMFmnV0NBY

Start from 30:38 to know detailed reasoning from the man himself, Brian Galvin

Very clever question to test whether test taker understand the concept of XperY in both direction

The CORRECT ANSWER is E.

The WRONG REVERSE ANSWER for hasty test taker is C

Question ask us to make the officers statement weak. We will make his conclusion weak and his statement will automatically become weak.
Officers conclusion :- The number of murder victims per 100 people has actually fallen slightly in the city since 1970.

See how cleverly the Officer has changed the original argument from VIOLENT CRIME to MURDER.
Murder is a violent crime and Almost murder, attempt to murder violence against someone making him almost dead is also violent crime.

Option E tell us :- In 1970 healthcare was bad. Even less injured assault victim would died easily. Last year Healthcare was good. Even highly injured, almost dead people were saved by doctors. Since they were saved therefore they were not murdered. Since they were not murdered, rate of murder came down compared to 1970. But this does not mean they were not subjected to extreme violence. It means lot of violent crimes are happening but due to doctors these violent crimes are not getting converted as murders.
How do we know this .. the statement says so :-
If the health care received by assault victims last year had been of the same quality as it was in 1970, the murder rate in the city last year would have turned out to be several times what it actually was.

Now lets look at option C which will fool a lot of people
C. Murders and other violent crimes are more likely to be reported now than they were in 1970.
In 1970 say, 100 murder took place 40 were reported. So actually more murder happened but police only thought less murders are happening because less complaint were filed
Last year :- 100 murder took place and 94 were reported. So police may think a lot of murder is happening but actually murder rate is same. Only now police know about it.

This fact does not most strongly counter the city official's response who thinks murder rate is less. This is actually the reverse of what the officer is saying.




Citizen: Each year since 1970, a new record has been set for the number of murders committed in this city. This fact points to the decreasing ability of our law enforcement system to prevent violent crime.

City Official: You overlook the fact that the city's population has risen steadily since 1970. In fact, the number of murder victims per 100 people has actually fallen slightly in the city since 1970.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strongly counter the city official's response?

A. The incidence of fraud has greatly increased int he city since 1970.
B. The rate of murders in the city since 1970 decreased according to the age group of the victim, decreasing more for younger victims.
C. Murders and other violent crimes are more likely to be reported now than they were in 1970.
D. The number of law enforcement officials in the city has increased at a rate judged by city law enforcement experts to be sufficient to serve the city's increased population.
E. If the health care received by assault victims last year had been of the same quality as it was in 1970, the murder rate in the city last year would have turned out to be several times what it actually was.

VeritasPrepKarishma.
GMATNinja

In two-person stimuli is it ok to strengthen first person's response if we are asked to weaken the second person's response?

Also I had a tough time identifying conclusion for second person. Are not both statements facts in second person's comment?


I selected C since thought I had to strengthen conclusion that decreasing ability of our law enforcement system is responsible for more no of murders in the city.

Let me know gaps in my understanding.

Note what the question asks: "...would most strongly counter the city official's response?"

City official says "the number of murder victims per 100 people has actually fallen slightly in the city since 1970."

How can you counter it?

By showing another relevant comparison between 1970 and today - If the health care received by assault victims last year had been of the same quality as it was in 1970, the murder rate in the city last year would have turned out to be several times what it actually was.
Something that says that guess what, since medical facilities are way better, your numbers are off.

There is no conclusion in city official's statements. He gives facts to counter the argument of the citizen. So we deduce that his stand is opposite to that of the citizen's.

(C) is incorrect. It supports the city official's stand. We need to instead counter his stand.

Citizen: Each year since 1970, a new record has been set for the number of murders committed in this city. This fact points to the decreasing ability of our law enforcement system to prevent violent crime.

City Official: You overlook the fact that the city's population has risen steadily since 1970. In fact, the number of murder victims per 100 people has actually fallen slightly in the city since 1970.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strongly counter the city official's response?


C. Murders and other violent crimes are more likely to be reported now than they were in 1970.
D. The number of law enforcement officials in the city has increased at a rate judged by city law enforcement experts to be sufficient to serve the city's increased population.
E. If the health care received by assault victims last year had been of the same quality as it was in 1970, the murder rate in the city last year would have turned out to be several times what it actually was.

I focused on the choices C,D and E which were mostly selected. IMO, C is sort of strengthening the city officials. More murders are reported, by contrast, murder rate is declining, so is the law system doing a better job now than 1970?? In terms of D, I had to go back to the question which is which one counters the city officials' response. I am not sure if this one is actually supporting the city officials. The logic I see here is that the law enforcement official rates has been increased so that, as the city officials stated, the murder rate dropped. Choice E offers a new perspective to think about murder rate or murder victims. Health care has enhanced, more lives have been saved, so the murder rate "seems" lower. However, the fact is that murder cases have increased.

Highly tricky one all the la/st three options were looking highly similar C D E all of that one byy one
C- this is something that's compatible with the official's argument
D - this a condition but not a sufficient one yes this a highly likely the next one will blow in your face
E - yes it was the health care doing the entire prevention measures and reducing it could have been several notch higher highlighting the neglegience of the iofficials in charge
Hence imo E

Below are my 2 cents for each option of this Question -

Citizen: Each year since 1970, a new record has been set for the number of murders committed in this city. This fact points to the decreasing ability of our law enforcement system to prevent violent crime.

City Official: You overlook the fact that the city's population has risen steadily since 1970. In fact, the number of murder victims per 100 people has actually fallen slightly in the city since 1970.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strongly counter the city official's response?


A. The incidence of fraud has greatly increased in the city since 1970.
Option A doesn't counter the argument as increase in incidence of fraud can be explained by the increase in Population

B. The rate of murders in the city since 1970 decreased according to the age group of the victim, decreasing more for younger victims.
Option B doesn't affect the argument. Don't see any logic why we want to drill down at the age group level

C. Murders and other violent crimes are more likely to be reported now than they were in 1970.
Interesting! Option C strengthens City Official's Argument that they have done well

D. The number of law enforcement officials in the city has increased at a rate judged by city law enforcement experts to be sufficient to serve the city's increased population.
Strengthen City Official's Argument that the City was able to handle the population increase

E. If the health care received by assault victims last year had been of the same quality as it was in 1970, the murder rate in the city last year would have turned out to be several times what it actually was.
This option clearly shows that the fall in # of murder victims per 100 is not fully attributable to the ability of Law Enforcement

Let us break down the argument to understand it thoroughly.

­Citizen: Each year since 1970, a new record has been set for the number of murders committed in this city. This fact points to the decreasing ability of our law enforcement system to prevent violent crime.

• Citizen is stating the fact that number of murders in the city has been setting records each year from 1970. (Fact)
• From this, it implies that the law enforcement system's ability is decreasing to prevent violent crime. (Cause of the increase of murders in the city according to the citizen)

City Official: You overlook the fact that the city's population has risen steadily since 1970. In fact, the number of murder victims per 100 people has actually fallen slightly in the city since 1970.

• The official is stating that the population has risen steadily sinc 1970. (Fact)
• Number of murder victims per 100 people has fallen slightly. (Reasoning of why the increased number cannot be said to be concluded as an increase in crime in the city)

Possible counter to the argument:
The crimes have fallen slightly indicates that the ratio of crimes is still the same and not reduced by a greater extent. This means that the ability of the law enforcement system is same. Also, each year the record of crime is newly set. On what basis can we say that the increase in population will not lead to the increase in ratio of the crime? This in itself indicates the disability of the law enforcement system.

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) The incidence of fraud has greatly increased in the city since 1970.
Analysis and Reasoning:

• The argument is mentioning in the context of murders, whereas this option choice is mentioning about the incidence of fraud, which is not a violent crime and thus becomes irrelevant to the question.

(B) The rate of murders in the city since 1970 decreased according to the age group of the victim, decreasing more for younger victims.
Analysis and Reasoning:

• The argument states only about the murders and the ability of the law enforcement system.
• It does not talk about the statistics of the population age, population education and other such factors.

(C) Murders and other violent crimes are more likely to be reported now than they were in 1970.
Analysis and Reasoning:

• This option choice performs the exact opposite as to what we want.
• The choice says that the murders and the violent crime are more likely to be reported now.
• This means that the crimes performed in 1970 were high but the crimes reported were low. The reported crime numbers were thus not the true indicator of the actual rate of crime.
• This means that the law enforcement system was weak in the 1970 as well. The ability of law enforcement system is thus weak because the ratio of crime is also almost the same (though slightly decreased).
• The answer choice is wrong mainly because it attacks the citizens argument rather than the city official's argument.

(D) The number of law enforcement officials in the city has increased at a rate judged by city law enforcement experts to be sufficient to serve the city's increased population.
Analysis and Reasoning:

• This statement supports the city official's statement. It shows that the law enforcement system has made efforts to increase the ability and thus strengthen the enforcement of laws of violent crimes.
• It is the opposite of what is asked from the question.

(E) If the health care received by assault victims last year had been of the same quality as it was in 1970, the murder rate in the city last year would have turned out to be several times what it actually was.
Analysis and Reasoning:

• If the assault victims were taken to doctors in 1970, the chances that the victim would be alive were low. 
• If the same quality of medical care was maintained till now, the murder rate would be several times higher implies that more assault victims are present. Given that the medical care would remain the same, it won't help in recovering such a big number of patients. 
• Thus there is a possibility that the murder victims slight reduction is a result of the improved medical care and not of the ability of the law enforcement system thus providing an alternate reason.

 ­