Columnist: The chief of police has claimed in a recent press

Question

Columnist: The chief of police has claimed in a recent press conference that the decline in the number of pickpockets caught on the street indicates that his department that has partly eliminated this petty crime. He might as well argue that because there are higher levels of fog over L.A., there are fewer stars in the night sky. The gentlemen of our police department, in all likelihood, have caught fewer acts of petty crime lately simply because their vigilance is haphazard, at best.

The columnist's statements, if true, best support which of the following as a conclusion?

A. Catching acts of petty crime requires vigilance above all.

B. It is possible to estimate roughly how many petty crimes are committed in the area through methods of inference.

C. Crimes unobserved due to negligence and stars unobserved due to fog stand in roughly equal proportion over time.

D. Rather than believe the chief of police, the people of the town should demand greater vigilance of the police force.

E. Pickpockets continue to carry on their petty crimes.

This is a  Data Sufficiency Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

ribbons · Answer

BCD are totally irrelevant

A -> their vigilance is haphazard but that doesnt with certainity translate to vigilance will solve the issue
E -> police isnt catching them bc theyre not paying attention and that the crimes continue

Answer-E

Purnank · Answer

The columnist asserts that the decline in the number of pickpockets caught is likely due to the police department's lack of vigilance rather than a true reduction in the crime.

Hence  E. Pickpockets continue to carry on their petty crimes.  Serves as a best conclusion in support with columnist reasoning that the decline in arrests is due to a lack of police vigilance, not an actual reduction in the crime itself.

captain0612 · Answer

IMO Choice E

Chief of police claims that Pickpoketing has reduced (partly eliminated), based on the evidence that fewer number of pickpokets are caught.
 Author's views (Columnist)  are in contrast with the chief of police. He doesn't believe Chief's claims.

The focus of the above passage is on Pickpoketing.

Question type - Inference

A. Catching acts of petty crime requires vigilance above all. This is just part of the passage.  The author tells us that PD's vigilance is haphazard to highlight the disagreement with the Police  Incorrect

B. It is possible to estimate roughly how many petty crimes are committed in the area through methods of inference.  Estimation is out of context. We are not bothered about the number but rather on the trend  Incorrect

C. Crimes unobserved due to negligence and stars unobserved due to fog stand in roughly equal proportion over time.  Author uses the fog and star as an analogy to emphasize chief's view is flawed  Incorrect

D. Rather than believe the chief of police, the people of the town should demand greater vigilance of the police force.  Partly correct, since author doesn't want us to believe in the chief. The second regarding demand for vigilance is out of scope.  Incorrect

E. Pickpockets continue to carry on their petty crimes.   Correct  This is what author is trying to say.

Shwarma · Answer

Option E

Colomist - has a very rebuttal tone to the police comments, and the use of words like - might as well argue etc. shows disagreement and 
Option E - summarises the conclusion well.
Maybe the crime rate has increased but at best.. it has stayed the same.

I felt option A was tricky- but the columnist has said - being vigilant is haphazard at best... but we don't know the criteria of what is at worst. 
so I eliminated that

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

Reading the question: we read the statements of the columnist, which turn out to be a brief rant. We don't have to criticize what the columnist said; rather, we have to draw a conclusion. We can prove by stronger terms; most likely, the correct answer choice will be not only a good conclusion, but a required conclusion. Such a choice may not be the most natural conclusion, but it will be the most objectively flawless one. That's our filter.

Applying the filter: (A) does not follow from the prompt, which gives a lack of vigilance as a failure mode here, but not necessarily how we catch petty crime above all. (B) is neither indicated nor required by the argument. Same with (C). (D) sounds natural, but it need not be true. The columnist's point might be, for example, that we can't trust the chief at all, and need to demand his replacement. That leaves us with (E).

Logical proof: we can see that (E) must be true. If the police have caught fewer acts only because they haven't been trying as hard, then there are at least as many acts as before. We apply the negation test. Suppose that pickpockets do not carry on their petty crimes. Suppose there were no more pickpockets at all In that case, the decline in pickpocket cases cannot be attributed to poor vigilance.

The correct answer is (E).

Columnist: The chief of police has claimed in a recent press

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Columnist: The chief of police has claimed in a recent press

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards