Crimes are mainly committed by the young, and for this reason merely

agree with A.

The original passage states nothing about prison terms (b), military constriction for 17-19 y/o (c), leaving school (d), educational or recreational activities.

The original passage states:
- Young people commit majority of the crimes
- Increasing police expenditures will not reduce the crime rate
- Only way to reduce crime rate is to reduce the number of people in the age range 14-30.

These statements would support the the argument AGAINST having any law enforcement program (expenditure) to reduce the crime rate.

Initially, I was confused too after reading the question. But looks like "A" is the best choice.

How can A be the answer here? Option B increasing prison terms for young people found guilty of crimes is one of the law enforcement programs that can be taken to control crime. option B is actually a sub-set of option A. If B is disqualified, A must be wrong also.
the likelihood that any law enforcement program ... word any includes all possible measures. Experts please confirm.

A seems plausible: the likelihood that any law enforcement program will be effective in reducing the crime rate within a short time

from which paper test did u get this question?

yup buddy its A check the similarities of all answers, and check what questions stem demanded : question stem wants to decrease the number of youngsters between an age group and all wrong answers make youngster engage in activities to decrease their numbers.

hi please make "expenditures" singular as it does not fit the verb "has".

This argument is AGAINST an increase in law enforcement to deter crime and FOR measures that protect the community against criminal youth. A is the only argument FOR law enfocement while the rest are FOR measures against youth. Again, this argument is FOR measures against youth and looking to DISPELL the police theory. Since A is for and and the prompt is looking to DISCREDIT the police theory, the correct answer is A (to discredit)..

Crimes are mainly committed by the young, and for this reason merely increasing the number of police officers or expenditures on police services has little effect on reducing the crime rate. In fact, the only factor associated with a crime-rate drop is a decrease in the number of people in the community aged fourteen to thirty.
The findings above can best serve as part of an argument against
(A) the likelihood that any law enforcement program will be effective in reducing the crime rate within a short time
(B) increasing prison terms for young people found guilty of crimes
(C) introducing compulsory military conscription for people aged seventeen to nineteen
(D) raising the age at which students are permitted to leave school
(E) a community’s plan to increase the number of recreational and educational activities in which young adults can participate

What I think is : this is sort of reverse question. The given statement work as a weakener and you have to find a conclusion for that, which weakens this conclusion. (as it is against)

A - any law enforcement program will not be effective in reducing the crime rate within a short time. :- The arguments says that only factor which is responsible for crime rate drop is "Age" nothing else will help. so Law enforcement will not help effective in reducing the crime rate. In long run crime will reduce because by that time, youngsters cross their age and will reach beyond thirty.

(E) a community’s plan to increase the number of recreational and educational activities in which young adults can participate :- Will the argument is against this? The question stem only provides link between crime rate and age.

GMATNinja I am not able to understand the question type and how exactly am i supposed to weaken/approach it.

The little i have deciphered is :

ONLY by decreasing the no. of Young ppl --------> Decrease the Crime Rate

( Merely increasing no. of police officers or expenditure on police service would have little effect )


Question says: The findings (FACTS ) above will WEAKEN which of the following ARGUMENT below? = (I assumed now that the ans. choices would weaken the argument i framed above)

Here,
if it were X leads to/ causes/ will lead to Y, an Alternative cause wouldn't have worked.
ONLY X ---> Y kind of a question. Since the word ONLY is mentioned , we can have an alternative cause to weaken the effect.

I only find choice A as a potential alternative cause and a weakener for the above argument as it in someway (law enforcement program will be effective) can be linked with increasing police officers giving the desired result.

Could you kindly guide me on the logic I used and whether my approach is correct?

I think you're on the right track. Just remember that (A) is not a weakener itself. The question stem states, "The findings above can best serve as part of an argument against..."

So, looking at (A), we need to argue AGAINST the likelihood "that any law enforcement program will be effective in reducing the crime rate within a short time". In other words, we need to argue that it is UNLIKELY "that any law enforcement program will be effective in reducing the crime rate within a short time."

The statements in the passage would certainly support that view. We are told that 1) "merely increasing the number of police officers or expenditures on police services has little effect on reducing the crime rate" and that 2) "the only factor associated with a crime-rate drop is a decrease in the number of people in the community aged fourteen to thirty".

A law enforcement program would NOT decrease the number of 14-30 year-old people in the community. Also, increasing expenditures on police services (such as a law enforcement program), "has little effect on reducing the crime rate". Therefore, it is UNLIKELY "that any law enforcement program will be effective in reducing the crime rate within a short time."

That's why (A) is the correct choice. I hope that helps!

Hi GMATNinja,

Thank you for your great explanation.

However, in A , how can we know that "any law enforcement program " would not include program that can reduce the number of the young?

Please explain.

Thank you.

A law enforcement program that decreases the number of people in the community aged fourteen to thirty would have to involve law enforcement literally ending the lives of these young people, moving them out of the community, or somehow reversing or accelerating their age.

It's highly unlikely that this kind of action falls under the author's definition of law enforcement programs meant to reduce the crime rate (like increasing the number of police officers or increasing expenditures on police services).

Also remember that our task is NOT to pick an argument that must be true in 100% of potential scenarios. Even if reducing the number of youth falls under the range of potential law enforcement programs, (A) is still the best-fitting argument, and every other choice can be eliminated.

I hope this helps!

B is supported by the passage, so its out. If an answer choice is supported by the argument then it cant really serve as an argument against here
C is incorrect because if anything it misses the full-scope of the argument.
D is incorrect because its not really related to the argument - we would need to assume some sort of tie between crime and kids at school and we would need to assume that people who have finished school but are in the age bracket of 18-30 don't commit nearly as much crime.
E is incorrect not remotely related.

A is correct as the passage states that the only way to reduce the crime is by reducing the number of those aged X in the community and this obviously won't happen overnight, so the claim that it does happen quickly will be argued against heavily by the information in the passage

Please could you help me understand why (E) is incorrect?

I Thought (E) increases the number of people aged 14 - 30. This in turn would increase the crime rate and the argument is all about decreasing the number of people aged 14 - 30 in the community in order to decrease the crime rate

Thus, the argument would clearly go against such a community plan

Conclusion: The only way to reduce crime is to reduce the number of young people
Support: Any action taking to confine young people or to make young busy with other activities will support argument.
Against: Any alternative action that is talking about reducing crime will be against the argument.

The findings above can best serve as part of an argument against

POE:
(A) the likelihood that any law enforcement program will be effective in reducing the crime rate within a short time Correct
-Gives alternative way to reduce crime
(B) increasing prison terms for young people found guilty of crimes Incorrect
- Support the argument. It talks about confining young people.
(C) introducing compulsory military conscription for people aged seventeen to nineteen Incorrect
- Support the argument. It talks about confining young people.
(D) raising the age at which students are permitted to leave school Incorrect
- Support the argument. It talks about confining young in school
(E) a community’s plan to increase the number of recreational and educational activities in which young adults can
participate Incorrect
- Support the argument. It talks about making them

Hoozan

Hi Hoozan,
Don't know if your doubt is resolved or not. I came across your query and thought to add my 2 cents.

The entire passage focuses on the crime rate in the city, police personal, and expenditures.
In short crux, increasing the police officers or spending is not a good idea because crimes are committed by the young.

Now option E is giving you a plan to increase the number of adults in the community by indulging in some activities. This has no relation with police services, crime rate, or expenditures. The passage presented above is not written with the view that we should decrease the number of adults in the community, but with a view that increasing the personal or expenditure is a futile idea. The last line of the passage is just given as a suggestion for crime rate drop, which I assume you are getting confused with.
Hope this helps.


KarishmaB Ma'am,
Request your evaluation.

The question stem complicates the simple argument. The question means the findings above go against which of the following statements? What can not be inferred from the statements above?

The statement says -
Crimes are mainly committed by the young.

Merely increasing the number of police officers OR
expenditures on police services

- has little effect on reducing the crime rate
Only factor associated with a crime-rate drop is a decrease in the number of people in the community aged fourteen to thirty.

(A) the likelihood that any law enforcement program will be effective in reducing the crime rate within a short time - the likelihood of a decrease in crime rate within a short period is not supported by the argument. How can we decrease crime when the only way that shows the crime rate is to decrease the number of people? All the statements in the argument go against this statement.
(B) increasing prison terms for young people found guilty of crimes - if we increase the prison term, there will be fewer young people > less crime rate. This can be inferred from the statements.
(C) introducing compulsory military conscription for people aged seventeen to nineteen - if we introduce compulsory military conscription, there will be fewer young people > a lower crime rate. This can be inferred from the statements.
(D) raising the age at which students are permitted to leave school - if we raise the age, there will be fewer young people (they need to be with an adult ) > a lower crime rate. This can be inferred from the statements.
(E) a community’s plan to increase the number of recreational and educational activities in which young adults can participate. - if a community plans to increase the number of recreational and educational activities, there will be fewer young people (fewer young people roaming outside freely) > and a lower crime rate. This can be inferred from the statements.