Bunuel wrote:
Critics of a British surveillance system designed to recognize faces digitally point out that the system has not recognized any criminals committing a crime, even though scores of those with previous convictions have had their likeness entered in the system’s data banks and are known to live in the areas where the system is deployed. Nevertheless, proponents of the system rightly credit it with a 34 percent reduction of crime in those areas.
Given the information above, which of the following would, if true, most help to account for the system’s contribution to the reduction of crime?
A. The nature and location of the system is widely known by the public at large.
B. The areas where the system has been installed have several thriving businesses.
C. The criminals entered in the system’s data banks were all convicted of more than one serious crime.
D. Most face-recognition software works effectively either with profiles or with full frontal images.
E. The system is not deployed in every city where the crime rate is high.
- Fc : Unsucessfull in detecting criminals, although data correctly fed in system.
+ Fc : 34% drop in Crimes.
Although the system was unsuccessful in detecting criminals (Though data was fed in the system) there was a 34% reduction in crime.
How did the system contribute in reduction of crime rate by 34% ? It did nothing !!!
(A) If the nature and location of the surveillance system are widely known by the public, it could lead to a deterrent effect on potential criminals.
(B) thriving businesses - Have no role inc crime rate.
(C) convicted of more than one serious crime - OK, accepted, but system can not recognize "any"criminals, then how did system contribute?
(D) How , frontal , sideways is not important.Identification of criminals is important and the system failed in it.
(E) Even if the system was deployed in city having less crime rate, what caused the 34% reduction in crime in that city ?
Answer must be (A) the only possible option...