Violent forms of robbery tend to be most severe in nations with median

Hi Max,
I like the quality of your questions.

Premise: As an economy begins develop, an initial wave of envy tends to trigger robberies, including violent robberies. As the economy develops further, a greater percentage of that society exits poverty, which in turn reducing envy, and thereby the number of robberies.
Conclusion: Therefore, we can expect Baltria to soon see its violent robbery rate decrease given that its economy has begun to develop over the last several years.
Assumption: The economy will develop smoothly. Nothing will stop development in Baltria.

Choice Analysis:

Ⓐ Once an economy begins to develop, there tends to be a tightening of law enforcement, and punishment for violent crime offenses.
The crime increase and decrease is about development. No mention about law in the passage at all. So it is irrelevant and out of scope.

Ⓑ Once an economy develops, a spill-off effect can help bolster the economies of neighboring countries, further reinforcing economic development.
The passage's scope is about Baltria only. So it is out of scope.

Ⓒ Baltria's economic development will not stall in the near-future.
This matches the assumption. If something stopped Baltria's development, the crime would not decrease.

Ⓓ Baltiran leaders are committed to making Baltria one of the most economically advanced nations in the region.
According to the passage, economic development is responsible for increase or decrease of crime. No leaders involved. So it is out of scope.

Ⓔ No other country in the region has a violent robbery rate as high as that of Baltria’s.
The scope is Baltria only. No other country has to do with or affect Baltria.

Violent robberies severe in 10-20% interval, not in the bottom 10%.

When Economy begins to develop >more envy>more violent robberies
Now, Economy develops further after the initial stage>less envy >less violent robberies

Now, Baltria will have less no of violent robberies once this happens. Therfore, assumption is that Baltria's development will not stall and will continue to grow.

Answer C

Author states one pattern and then expect that "Baltria " will follow the same pattern.

Pattern is economy start -> Robbery increase due to some factor, Economy further decrease -> Robbery decrease.

Possible assumption (Pre-Thinking) :
1. Baltria is nation, in which economy has just started to develop (Start of the pattern) and in which economy will continue to grow (continue the pattern)

2. Baltria is not the fully developed nation (Not out of pattern)



Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

Ⓐ Once an economy begins to develop, there tends to be a tightening of law enforcement, and punishment for violent crime offenses.
Nice fact but does it connects to argument as an assumption. Out of scope. INCORRECT

Ⓑ Once an economy develops, a spill-off effect can help bolster the economies of neighboring countries, further reinforcing economic development.
Out of scope, states the fact. Out of scope. INCORRECT

Ⓒ Baltria's economic development will not stall in the near-future.
Matches the pre thinking. Supports the pattern, stated by author.
let's negate this - B's economy wont grow further. So Robbery won't decrease. (As per the pattern stated by author)

Ⓓ Baltiran leaders are committed to making Baltria one of the most economically advanced nations in the region.
Not in scope , INCORRECT

Ⓔ No other country in the region has a violent robbery rate as high as that of Baltria’s.
We are talking about, B not about the any other country. Out of scope Incorrect

Option C is correct.

[quote="EMPOWERgmatMax"]CR ASSUMPTION SERIES: 2) Violent Forms of Robbery

Violent forms of robbery tend to be most severe in nations with median wages not in the bottom 10% of nations, but rather between the 10% and 20% intervals. Although that shifted bulge might seem to run counter to what many might presume would be the case, there is a reasonable explanation for the bulge effect. As an economy begins develop, an initial wave of envy tends to trigger robberies, including violent robberies. As the economy develops further, a greater percentage of that society exits poverty, which in turn reduces envy, and thereby the number of robberies. Therefore, we can expect Baltria to soon see its violent robbery rate decrease given that its economy has begun to develop over the last several years.

Text in blue: Premises
Text in green: Conclusion.

Prethinking: We have been told that countries experience the 'bulge effect' due to the stronger economy. Violent crimes increase when the economy begins to develop but they tend to decrease once the economy develops further. This logic is then extended to Baltria as its economy has started to develop over the last several years. This argument assumes that the economy's progress will not stall. This is captured by choice C.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

Ⓐ Once an economy begins to develop, there tends to be a tightening of law enforcement, and punishment for violent crime offenses.
Incorrect. This is not true as it is going against the premise that as the economy begins to develop, envy leads to more violent crimes. The presented option states the opposite as tightening of law enforcement should lead to a reduction in violent crimes. Reduction happens only once the development progresses further than the initial stages.

Ⓑ Once an economy develops, a spill-off effect can help bolster the economies of neighboring countries, further reinforcing economic development.
Incorrect. Irrelevant. Economies of neighboring countries is not relevant.

Ⓒ Baltria's economic development will not stall in the near-future.
Correct. As per the prethinking above. If this option is negated, we will get "Baltria's economic development will not stall in the near-future." If the economy stalls in the near future, then envy might still persist, leading to further increase in the crimes. This will then weaken the conclusion.

Ⓓ Baltrian leaders are committed to making Baltria one of the most economically advanced nations in the region.
Incorrect. Irrelevant. Even if the leaders are committed to make Baltria one of the most economically advanced nations in the region, there is no proof if this will be realized.

Ⓔ No other country in the region has a violent robbery rate as high as that of Baltria’s.
Incorrect. Irrelevant. The argument is based on the economic development and not on violent robbery rate.

Conclusion - Baltria to soon see its violent robbery rate decrease given that its economy has begun to develop over the last several years
Premise - Everything else
POE-
Ⓐ Once an economy begins to develop, there tends to be a tightening of law enforcement, and punishment for violent crime offenses. - This is out of scope. Even if these things don't happen, there is still a decrease in robbery rate because of a decrease in envy.

Ⓑ Once an economy develops, a spill-off effect can help bolster the economies of neighboring countries, further reinforcing economic development. - This is also an additional premise. Even if this doesn't happen, there is still a decrease in robbery rate because of a decrease in envy.

Ⓒ Baltria's economic development will not stall in the near-future. - This is clearly an assuption taken by the author while making his prediction that Baltria to soon see its violent robbery rate decrease given that its economy has begun to develop over the last several years

Ⓓ Baltrian leaders are committed to making Baltria one of the most economically advanced nations in the region. - This is out of scope. Even if they want to do this, it doesn't help the argument in any way

Ⓔ No other country in the region has a violent robbery rate as high as that of Baltria’s. - This option also doesn't help the argument in any way. We are only focused on Baltria and other countries doesn't matter

IMO C
If Baltria's economic development stalls then the conclusion falls apart

CR ASSUMPTION SERIES: 2) Violent Forms of Robbery

Violent forms of robbery tend to be most severe in nations with median wages not in the bottom 10% of nations, but rather between the 10% and 20% intervals. Although that shifted bulge might seem to run counter to what many might presume would be the case, there is a reasonable explanation for the bulge effect. As an economy begins develop, an initial wave of envy tends to trigger robberies, including violent robberies. As the economy develops further, a greater percentage of that society exits poverty, which in turn reduces envy, and thereby the number of robberies. Therefore, we can expect Baltria to soon see its violent robbery rate decrease given that its economy has begun to develop over the last several years.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

Ⓐ Once an economy begins to develop, there tends to be a tightening of law enforcement, and punishment for violent crime offenses.

Ⓑ Once an economy develops, a spill-off effect can help bolster the economies of neighboring countries, further reinforcing economic development.

Ⓒ Baltria's economic development will not stall in the near-future.

Ⓓ Baltrian leaders are committed to making Baltria one of the most economically advanced nations in the region.

Ⓔ No other country in the region has a violent robbery rate as high as that of Baltria’s.


Official Explanation

Question Type: Assumption
Boil It Down (Simplified & Abbreviated Summary of the Prompt): Economy develops, Violent robberies subside -> Baltria violent robberies will subside
Missing Information (assumption): The argument magically makes the leap from the theory that violent robberies tend to drop after economies advance beyond the 20th percent interval, to Baltria will see its violent robberies drop. What’s missing is proof that Baltria is poised to see it graduate beyond the 20th percent interval.
Goal: Find the option that contains that missing information.

Let’s see which option best achieves the goal:

Note: The Opposite Test – Since by definition an assumption is a piece of missing information required for the argument to work, if we take the opposite of a valid assumption the argument will collapse. Therefore, we can use the Opposite Test with the options. Just take the logical opposite of the option and ask: does the argument collapse? If not, the option is wrong. If yes, it’s the correct option.

Ⓐ Not required. This option is problematic for two reasons: 1) It doesn’t sound like Baltria’s economy is BEGINNING to develop. It sounds like it’s probably pretty well along in the development track if the author believes Baltria is poised to break into the 20th percent+ range, and therefore this option is Out of Focus for that reason alone since the argument wouldn’t take for granted something that wouldn’t even apply to Baltria. 2) The argument doesn’t require the information that law enforcement plays a role in the violent crime drop. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn’t. Therefore, this option raises another aspect that’s tangential to the argument.

Ⓑ Not required. This option raises something that very well may be true, but the argument certainly does not rest on this spillover effect. If the spill-off effect were to happen, that might help boost development, but that spillover effect is definitely not something required for this argument to hold. Let's confirm with the Opposite Test: Once an economy develops, a spill-off effect does NOT happen. The argument still stands since an economy could develop even without the spill-off effect.

Ⓒ Yes! Required! The argument NEEDS the Baltrian economy to continue to grow for the logic to work. The argument banks everything on that continued development. Look how the Opposite Test CRUSHES the argument: Baltria's economic development WILL stall in the near-future. The argument is destroyed! Since the argument collapses if we take the opposite of C, that proves that C is required for the argument to hold.

Ⓓ Not required. The Opposite Test: The Baltrian economy could still continue to develop even if its leaders weren’t committed to Baltria’s economic advancement. Boot this option.

Ⓔ Not required. The argument doesn’t depend on Baltria having the worst violent robbery rate. The Opposite Test: Some countries in the region have a violent robbery higher than Baltria’s. The argument still stands. Some nations could have a worse violent robber rate than Baltria, but Baltria could still have a pretty high violent robbery rate.

Only option C is required to be true for the logic in the argument to hold. Without C, the argument collapses, and thus it is assumed.


◀ CR ASSUMPTION SERIES: Question 1) Belmont Industries

▶ CR ASSUMPTION SERIES: Question 3) Several Police Departments

Hi Patronus,

Great prediction work. Your analysis is great.

Two Things: One SUPER nit-picky, but it may get you some an extra SC question on test day. When something is countable, we refer to it with FEWER (rather than LESS). We use LESS to refer to things that are inherently un-countable. For example, less water, fewer water bottles.

The other thing has to do with extracting maximum utility from each practice question you do. It is equally valuable to investigate why the wrong options are wrong as it is why the right option is right. Your fantastic prediction got you straight to C, but I'd love to see your personal thoughts for each of the four wrong options.

As you continue to crack-down on the wrong options, you're going to be amazed at the patterns that start to emerge, and how you see right through them. You'll start to expect, 180s, Out of Focus options, warped options, etc.

Looking forward to seeing your follow up, but again sweet work honing in on your rationale behind C.

Hi Mo2men,

THANKS! We appreciate it! I, in turn appreciate your thoughtful breakdown.

A couple of follow up notes:


This option actually DOES deal with Baltria (the spill-off effect can boost neighboring economies, which can than echo back to Baltria itself). Even though this option involves Baltria, it's Out of Focus since the argument doesn't DEPEND on the spill-off effect. Whether that effect happens or not, the argument can still stand.

I did want to point out that although this option is Out of Focus, it's not because it specifically references other nations. The option is Out of Focus because the argument doesn't require Baltria to have the WORST violent robbery rate.

Theoretically an option could reference other nations and be within the "scope" of what's assumed. For example, "Baltria's violent robbery rate is likely to respond to economic development similar to that of the other nations referenced in the "reasonable explanation"." That's in focus because the argument does depend on Baltria having a similar reaction to the other nations referenced in the "reasonable explanation" this argument is based on.

Sometimes GMAC tries to make a right option seem Out of Focus on a more advanced question.

Hi KS15,

Thank you for adding your thoughts as well. I just served you a Kudos! Exactly along the lines with what I suggested to Patronus above, extracting maximum utility from each practice question is INSANELY powerful. It is equally valuable to investigate why the wrong options are wrong as it is why the right option is right. Your great prediction got you straight to C, but I'd love to see your personal thoughts for each of the four wrong options (if not here, then in subsequent questions)

As you continue to crack-down on the wrong options, you're going to be amazed at the patterns that start to emerge, and how you see right through them. You'll start to expect, 180s, Out of Focus options, warped options, etc.

Hi vishwaprakash,

That's sharp referring to what's described in the prompt as "a pattern". That's a great way to look at it.

Hi Engr2012,

I'm very impressed by your breakdown. It's very well constructed. I only have one note, and it's purely a technical note:

This option actually DOES deal with Baltria (the spill-off effect can boost neighboring economies, which can than echo back to Baltria itself). That said, even though this option involves Baltria, it's Out of Focus since the argument doesn't DEPEND on the spill-off effect. Whether that effect happens or not, the argument can still stand.

Again, great stuff!

Hi masoomdon,

Thanks for weighing in! Although there is already a great collection of breakdowns, I'd really like to see your personal breakdown for each option, if you'd like to share. With practice questions, so much of the value comes from breaking down why each of the four wrong options is wrong, and why the right option is right. The more you scrutinize the prompt and the options in your review, you'll be amazed at how clearly the patterns in these questions stand out.

I hope to hear from you soon.

Hi Max,
Thanks. you are totally right with other nations but within the scope.

Can you please clarify your explanation about Point one in Choice A. I did not understand it.

Thanks

Sure! I'm really, really glad you asked for clarification if you needed it. Please see my expanded explanation below.

Ⓐ Once an economy begins to develop, there tends to be a tightening of law enforcement, and punishment for violent crime offenses.

Not required. This option is problematic for two reasons:

1) From the prompt, is Baltria’s economy BEGINNING to develop? The prompt makes it clear that that Baltria's economy is further along in its development than just BEGINNING to develop. Therefore, this option is irrelevant because it refers to what happens when economies BEGIN to develop. The reason we can be clear that Baltria's economy is further along than that is because the author believes Baltria is poised to break into the 20th percent+ range. Therefore, this option is Out of Focus as a possible assumption for that reason alone since the argument wouldn't take for granted something that wouldn’t even apply to Baltria.

2) The argument doesn’t require the information that law enforcement plays a role in the reduction of violent robberies. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn’t. The argument just doesn't rest on law enforcement's role. In fact, the argument suggests that the drop in violent robberies subsides organically as envy falls. Therefore, this option raises even another aspect that’s tangential to the argument, and certainly not assumed.

Hi Max,
You have showed really how some subtle words can make difference in the meaning and lead to either accept or reject a choice.
Well explained

Thanks

Violent forms of robbery tend to be most severe in nations with median wages not in the bottom 10% of nations, but rather between the 10% and 20% intervals. Although that shifted bulge might seem to run counter to what many might presume would be the case, there is a reasonable explanation for the bulge effect. As an economy begins develop, an initial wave of envy tends to trigger robberies, including violent robberies. As the economy develops further, a greater percentage of that society exits poverty, which in turn reduces envy, and thereby the number of robberies. Therefore, we can expect Baltria to soon see its violent robbery rate decrease given that its economy has begun to develop over the last several years.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

Ⓐ Once an economy begins to develop, there tends to be a tightening of law enforcement, and punishment for violent crime offenses.

Ⓑ Once an economy develops, a spill-off effect can help bolster the economies of neighboring countries, further reinforcing economic development.

Ⓒ Baltria's economic development will not stall in the near-future.

Ⓓ Baltrian leaders are committed to making Baltria one of the most economically advanced nations in the region.

Ⓔ No other country in the region has a violent robbery rate as high as that of Baltria’s.

Pre think assumption-The economy of Baltria will continue to grow in the future and development will not stall

Option A Once an economy begins to develop, there tends to be a tightening of law enforcement, and punishment for violent crime offenses. This is a more generic statement and does not attack the conclusion which states the economy of Baltria
Option B Once an economy develops, a spill-off effect can help bolster the economies of neighboring countries, further reinforcing economic development. Same as Option A
Option C -Baltria's economic development will not stall in the near-future As per pre think assumption step
Option D- Baltrian leaders are committed to making Baltria one of the most economically advanced nations in the region. We are not concerned with the commitment of Baltrian leaders to make it economically advanced nations
Option E-No other country in the region has a violent robbery rate as high as that of Baltria’s. We are not concerned with the comparison of rate of robbery of Baltria with other country.Out of scope
Can anyone correct me about my thought process of attacking the question ?