Critics of a British surveillance system designed to recognize faces

Question

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.

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

GMAT-Club-Forum-w7mqf2uo.png [ 92.25 KiB | Viewed 3380 times ]

Show Answer

Official Answer

A

Question exposed a gap? Take sectional Adaptive Quant, Verbal, or DI tests on GMAT Club and review the detailed score report. Get started →

Abhishek009 · Answer

- 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...

Ratikainen · Answer

This seemly easy question gave me a lot of headache. Can you please help me out  MartyMurray ? Thanks in advance!

The question asks for the one that accounts for system's contribution to crime reduction.
Choice A says that systems areas are known by public and therefore it implies that criminals would avoid such areas.
Doesn't this help explain critics' argument that the system does not really help? Aren't we supposed to find the one that explain system's contribution to reduce crime?

MartyMurray · Answer

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.

The passage presents a scenario with an outcome that could be considered surprising: a surveillance system has not recognized any criminals committing crimes, but the system can be rightly credited with a reduction of crime.

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?

This is a Paradox or Best Explains question, and the correct answer will provide a possible explanation for the surprising outcome. In other words, the correct answer will explain how the the system could be causing reductions in crime even though it has not recognized any criminals committing crimes.

A. The nature and location of the system is widely known by the public at large.

This choice is interesting.

The system is a "surveillance" system. So, it somehow watches what people are doing. In addition, "those with previous convictions have had their likeness entered in the system’s data banks." So, people who have track records of committing crimes would be recognized by the system.

Now, this choice tells us that the "nature and location" of the sytem are known.

OK, so, if people with track records of committing crimes know that there's a system that can recognize them and watches to see what's going on, we can see why the system would have caused reductions in crime. After all, what could be going on is that people who would commit crimes don't commit them because they know the system is watching to see whether they commit more crimes.

In other words, what's going on is that the system is reducing crime not by catching criminals in the act but by preventing them from committing crimes in the first place.

Now, it's possible to argue that the system is simply causing criminals to go elsewhere to commit crimes and that, therefore, the system is not actually causing an overall reduction in crime. At the same time, even if that theory were correct, this choice would still be correct. After all, the correct answer doesn't have to prove that the system is causing an overall reduction in crime. It just has to explain why the system is causing reductions in crime in areas in which it is deployed. So, since this choice would explain how the system is causing reductions in crime where it's deployed even if it's simply causing criminals to commit crimes elsewehere, this choice works regardless of whether we believe the system is causing an overall reduction in crime.

Keep.

B. The areas where the system has been installed have several thriving businesses.

This choice doesn't explain anything about the system. It simply brings up another characteristic of the areas in which the system has been deployed that doesn't have any clear connection to the system or to the reduction in crime.

Eliminate.

C. The criminals entered in the system’s data banks were all convicted of more than one serious crime.

We have to be careful not to take this choice and make up a story about what it says that seems to show how the system works.

For example, we might think something along  the lines of "Since the criminals entered into the system's bank were all convicted of more than one crime, they don't want to get caught again and therefore have stopped committing crimes, and that's why the system is working."

Notice that such a story has a big gap in it. Even if we believe that the criminals don't want to get caught again or believe something else about their having been convicted multiple times causing them not to commit more crimes, the passage says that the system hasn't caught anyone. So, we are still left wondering how the system could be working if it's not catching any criminals. After all, even if criminals don't want to get caught, a system that doesn't catch anyone would not be expected to reduce crime.

Eliminate.

D. Most face-recognition software works effectively either with profiles or with full frontal images.

This choice provides information on the wrong thing.

We need an explanation for how it could be that the system is causing reductions in crime without catching any criminals in the act whereas this choice simply provides detail on cases in which the system could be effective in recognizing people.

OK, great, the system can recognize people in multiple ways, but it still hasn't recognized any criminals committing crimes. So, how is it causing reductions in crime?

Eliminate.

E. The system is not deployed in every city where the crime rate is high.

This choice has the vibe of explaining what's going on. We might think something along the lines of "OK, that explains it. The system isn't deployed in some cities with high crime rates. So, sure the crime rates are lower where the system is deployed, but criminals are still committing crimes."

We have to be careful not to make up such a story though because it doesn't really make sense, and it doesn't provide the explanation we need.

We have to focus on what has to be explained here, and that is why the system is causing reductions in crime where it has been deployed. So, regardless of what's going on in other areas or whether the system has been deployed in all high crime areas, we're still left wondering why the system is causing reductions in crime where it has been deployed even though it hasn't caught anyone.

In short, the fact that the system isn't everywhere doesn't explain why it's working where it is.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:  A

abhichatur · Answer

MartyMurray  Thank you for your answer.
B. The areas where the system has been installed have several thriving businesses.

This choice doesn't explain anything about the system. It simply brings up another characteristic of the areas in which the system has been deployed that doesn't have any clear connection to the system or to the reduction in crime.

- For this option can't we say that crime has reduced and hence businesses are thriving?

MartyMurray · Answer

Notice that what the correct answer must do is not  show that  the system serves to reduce crime or explain why businesses are thriving.

The correct answer must " account for  the system’s contribution to the reduction of crime."

In other words, the correct answer must  explain why  the system serves to reduce crime even though it has not recognized any criminals committing a crime.

So, (B) is incorrect because the fact that there are thriving businesses in the areas where the system has been installed does not explain why the system works. After all, businesses being in the areas where the system has been installed would not cause the system to reduce crime.

Prak0709 · Answer

A bit weird but why cant we consider E since we can consider that criminals have moved on to other cities where the system isnt deployed for their crime spree ?

guddo · Answer

The passage describes a facial recognition system that hasn't recognized any criminals in the act, yet crime fell 34% in areas where it's used. The question asks which option explains how the system contributed to this drop.

Option A works because if the public knows about the system, potential criminals may be deterred from committing crimes there. This explains the reduction without the system needing to catch anyone.

Option B doesn't link thriving businesses to the system's effect.

Option C about criminals' prior records doesn't explain why crime dropped now.

Option D about software effectiveness is irrelevant since the system hasn't identified anyone during a crime.

Option E talks about where the system isn't used, which doesn't explain why crime fell where it is.

So,  A is correct  because it provides a direct deterrence mechanism that resolves the paradox.

guddo · Answer

E doesn’t explain how the system reduced crime, only that crime might have moved. A explains actual deterrence: people know the system is there, so they commit fewer crimes. That’s why A is correct.

MartyMurray · Answer

To get a Best Explains question correct, we have to be clear about what the correct answer must explain.

Here's the question stem:

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?

Considering the question stem in the context of what the passage says, we see that the correct answer must explain basically why the system can be "rightly" credited with a 34 percent reduction of crime.

Now, let's consider (E):

E. The system is not deployed in every city where the crime rate is high.

What (E) conveys, that the system is not deployed in some cities, would not explain why it can be "rightly" credited with a reduction in crime. After all, the fact that it has not been deployed in some places would not indicate that it has caused a reduction in crime.

So, we can eliminate (E) on that basis.

Critics of a British surveillance system designed to recognize faces

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

­Critics of a British surveillance system designed to recognize faces

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

Critics of a British surveillance system designed to recognize faces