Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
22 Jan 2020, 04:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
59% (02:20) correct
41%
(02:24)
wrong
based on 902
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
During the 1980s the homicide rate in Britain rose by 50 percent. The weapon used usually was a knife. Potentially lethal knives are sold openly and legally in many shops. Most homicide deaths occur as a result of unpremeditated assaults within the family. Even if these are increasing, they would probably not result in deaths if it were not for the prevalence of such knives. Thus the blame lies with the permissiveness of the government that allows such lethal weapons to be sold.
Which one of the following is the strongest criticism of the argument above?
(A) There are other means besides knives, such as guns or poison, that can be used to accomplish homicide by a person who intends to cause the death of another.
(B) It is impossible to know how many unpremeditated assaults occur within the family, since many are not reported to the authorities.
(C) Knives are used in other homicides besides those that result from unpremeditated assaults within the family.
(D) The argument assumes without justification that the knives used to commit homicide are generally purchased as part of a deliberate plan to commit murder or to inflict grievous harm on a family member.
(E) If the potentially lethal knives referred to are ordinary household knives, such knives were common before the rise in the homicide rate; but if they are weaponry, such knives are not generally available in households.
Which one of the following is the strongest criticism of the argument above?
(A) There are other means besides knives, such as guns or poison, that can be used to accomplish homicide by a person who intends to cause the death of another.
(B) It is impossible to know how many unpremeditated assaults occur within the family, since many are not reported to the authorities.
(C) Knives are used in other homicides besides those that result from unpremeditated assaults within the family.
(D) The argument assumes without justification that the knives used to commit homicide are generally purchased as part of a deliberate plan to commit murder or to inflict grievous harm on a family member.
(E) If the potentially lethal knives referred to are ordinary household knives, such knives were common before the rise in the homicide rate; but if they are weaponry, such knives are not generally available in households.
30 Jan 2020, 09:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
During the 1980s the homicide rate in Britain rose by 50 percent. The weapon used usually was a knife. Potentially lethal knives are sold openly and legally in many shops. Most homicide deaths occur as a result of unpremeditated assaults within the family. Even if these are increasing, they would probably not result in deaths if it were not for the prevalence of such knives. Thus the blame lies with the permissiveness of the government that allows such lethal weapons to be sold.
Which one of the following is the strongest criticism of the argument above?
(A) There are other means besides knives, such as guns or poison, that can be used to accomplish homicide by a person who intends to cause the death of another.
This is a strengthener; gun and poison can be considered as lethal weapons so eliminated.
(B) It is impossible to know how many unpremeditated assaults occur within the family, since many are not reported to the authorities.
Irrelevant, wether its reported or not, we know from the question that it's on the rise, and this is not linked to homicide by knives
(C) Knives are used in other homicides besides those that result from unpremeditated assaults within the family.
We are not concerned about other homicides
(D) The argument assumes without justification that the knives used to commit homicide are generally purchased as part of a deliberate plan to commit murder or to inflict grievous harm on a family member.
thre is no mention of a plan or intent behind the purchase of knives
(E) If the potentially lethal knives referred to are ordinary household knives, such knives were common before the rise in the homicide rate; but if they are weaponry, such knives are not generally available in households.
Correct: if it were ordinary knives that are termed as lethal they were prevalent before rise in homicide rates, so they possibly couldnot hvae been a reason, if the lethal knives are actually weapons, then these were not found at common households: indicating, they could not have caused or been associated with homisdes resulting from assaults in families
Which one of the following is the strongest criticism of the argument above?
(A) There are other means besides knives, such as guns or poison, that can be used to accomplish homicide by a person who intends to cause the death of another.
This is a strengthener; gun and poison can be considered as lethal weapons so eliminated.
(B) It is impossible to know how many unpremeditated assaults occur within the family, since many are not reported to the authorities.
Irrelevant, wether its reported or not, we know from the question that it's on the rise, and this is not linked to homicide by knives
(C) Knives are used in other homicides besides those that result from unpremeditated assaults within the family.
We are not concerned about other homicides
(D) The argument assumes without justification that the knives used to commit homicide are generally purchased as part of a deliberate plan to commit murder or to inflict grievous harm on a family member.
thre is no mention of a plan or intent behind the purchase of knives
(E) If the potentially lethal knives referred to are ordinary household knives, such knives were common before the rise in the homicide rate; but if they are weaponry, such knives are not generally available in households.
Correct: if it were ordinary knives that are termed as lethal they were prevalent before rise in homicide rates, so they possibly couldnot hvae been a reason, if the lethal knives are actually weapons, then these were not found at common households: indicating, they could not have caused or been associated with homisdes resulting from assaults in families
02 Feb 2020, 07:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
this question is most easily answered through process of elimination. (A)-(D) can be eliminated for logical reasons.
Between the wording of your question and the wording of the argument and answer choice, I'm a bit confused. Thus, let me just point out a couple of things that I think are relevant and you can tell me if I've answered your question, ok?
First of all, what you have listed as "C:" below is not quite right. It's not that rates of homicide are increasing, it's that rates of "unpremeditated assaults" are increasing. So an analysis of the argument looks more like this:
P: In the 80s, homicide rate rose 50%
P: Weapon usually a knife
P: Potentially lethal knives sold all around
P: Most homicides due to unpremeditated assaults within family
P: Even if such assaults increasing, probly no death if potentially lethal knives weren't around
C: Govt's fault for permitting potentially lethal knives to be sold
This is a complicated, and bad argument. The "even if... probably" statement is confusing, etc. The first four answer choices attempt to use smoke and mirrors to get you tangled up in the logic of all the premises.
(E) cuts right to the chase -- dealing directly with the rise of homicides in the 80s, and the family nature of the problem. If "potentially lethal knives" are household knives, these have always been available, so the rise in the 80s, therefore, can't be explained by this. If "potentially lethal knives" are actual weapons, these aren't in households!
This seriously weakens the central argument.
Between the wording of your question and the wording of the argument and answer choice, I'm a bit confused. Thus, let me just point out a couple of things that I think are relevant and you can tell me if I've answered your question, ok?
First of all, what you have listed as "C:" below is not quite right. It's not that rates of homicide are increasing, it's that rates of "unpremeditated assaults" are increasing. So an analysis of the argument looks more like this:
P: In the 80s, homicide rate rose 50%
P: Weapon usually a knife
P: Potentially lethal knives sold all around
P: Most homicides due to unpremeditated assaults within family
P: Even if such assaults increasing, probly no death if potentially lethal knives weren't around
C: Govt's fault for permitting potentially lethal knives to be sold
This is a complicated, and bad argument. The "even if... probably" statement is confusing, etc. The first four answer choices attempt to use smoke and mirrors to get you tangled up in the logic of all the premises.
(E) cuts right to the chase -- dealing directly with the rise of homicides in the 80s, and the family nature of the problem. If "potentially lethal knives" are household knives, these have always been available, so the rise in the 80s, therefore, can't be explained by this. If "potentially lethal knives" are actual weapons, these aren't in households!
This seriously weakens the central argument.
