Last visit was: 25 Apr 2026, 06:06 It is currently 25 Apr 2026, 06:06
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
phoenix2194
Joined: 01 Mar 2022
Last visit: 10 Jun 2024
Posts: 53
Own Kudos:
382
 [19]
Given Kudos: 25
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Operations
Schools: ISB '24
GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V40
Schools: ISB '24
GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V40
Posts: 53
Kudos: 382
 [19]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
16
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
nikitathegreat
Joined: 16 Dec 2021
Last visit: 15 Apr 2026
Posts: 176
Own Kudos:
23
 [1]
Given Kudos: 110
Location: India
GMAT 1: 630 Q45 V31
Products:
GMAT 1: 630 Q45 V31
Posts: 176
Kudos: 23
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
AnirudhaS
User avatar
LBS Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2019
Last visit: 25 Jun 2024
Posts: 778
Own Kudos:
887
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,575
Posts: 778
Kudos: 887
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Mavisdu1017
Joined: 10 Aug 2021
Last visit: 04 Jan 2023
Posts: 342
Own Kudos:
49
 [1]
Given Kudos: 226
Posts: 342
Kudos: 49
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nikitathegreat
Can someone explain why E is incorrect?

@Veritaskarishma GMATNinja
Hi bro, I am not an expert, but I think E is too strong. Although the sentencing of MOST repeat offenders would be unaffected, there will still be possible that the proposed rule will increase very little in the number of life sentence. Does it make sense?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 24 Apr 2026
Posts: 7,391
Own Kudos:
70,810
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,132
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,391
Kudos: 70,810
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nikitathegreat
Can someone explain why E is incorrect?

@Veritaskarishma GMATNinja
AnirudhaS and Mavisdu1017 are exactly right. (Nice work, you two!)

Sure, few repeat offenders are convicted of serious crimes -- but that doesn't mean that the number of life sentences given would not increase AT ALL, as stated in (E). So, the passage doesn't strongly support answer choice (E).
User avatar
mainbhiankit
User avatar
Fuqua Moderator
Joined: 21 Jul 2021
Last visit: 20 Oct 2023
Posts: 231
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 56
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
Products:
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
Posts: 231
Kudos: 176
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nikitathegreat
Can someone explain why E is incorrect?

@Veritaskarishma GMATNinja

Hi!

Also, to add to GMATNinja 's point: the premise states that "the rule mandates life sentences for criminals having multiple convictions for serious crimes"

And then the criminologist suggests that most repeat offenders are convicted for minor violations, i.e., not a serious crime

So, only those repeat offenders that are convicted for serious crimes will get affected by the proposal if it becomes a law.

P.S.: Adding there here in case anyone couldn't understand option A or found it irrelevant.
User avatar
Pratyaksh1907
Joined: 17 Nov 2024
Last visit: 24 Apr 2026
Posts: 35
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 38
Products:
Posts: 35
Kudos: 11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Let's dissect why E is wrong.
phoenix2194
Criminologist: Those who propose a rule mandating a life sentence for any criminal who has multiple convictions for serious crimes argue that it would be a welcome crackdown on career criminals. In reality, however, few repeat offenders are convicted of anything other than minor violations.

The criminologist’s statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

(A) The sentencing of most repeat offenders would be unaffected by the proposed rule if it became law.

(B) Many first-time offenders are convicted of serious crimes as well as minor violations.

(C) People who have never been convicted of minor violations are unlikely to become career criminals.

(D) Most people who have committed serious crimes are not convicted of anything other than minor violations.

(E) If the proposed sentencing rule became law, it would not actually increase the number of life sentences given.
Passage mentioned about, in reality, few multiple offenders are convicted as anything other than minor violations. Now, anything other than minor violation doesn't necessarily mean serious crimes. It can be serious or not be serious crimes.

Hence, if it is a serious crime then number of life sentences will increase.
If it is not a serious crime, then number of life sentence given will not increase.

As we can see that option E goes in both directions because of the lack of precise information.

Therefore, E cannot be inferred from the passage.
Hope this helps :)
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
504 posts
358 posts