Editorial: An arrest made by a Midville police officer is provisional

When dealing with BF questions, it is useful to first ignore the boldface and analyze the passage just like any other. Let's start by identifying the conclusion: "This recommendation {that the watch commander’s approval no longer be required} should be rejected as dangerous."

Now let's breakdown the argument. Again, ignore the boldface for now. The first two sentences just give us some background information:

• "An arrest made by a Midville police officer is provisional until the officer has taken the suspect to the police station and the watch commander has officially approved the arrest." - Pretty straightforward. When a Midville police officer makes an arrest, that arrest is considered provisional until the watch commander approves the arrest.
• Why might the watch commander deny such approval? If the commander judges "that the evidence on which the provisional arrest is based is insufficient."

Now let's get into the meat of the argument:

• "A government efficiency expert has observed that almost all provisional arrests meet the standards for adequacy of evidence that the watch commanders enforce." - We know that the watch commander can deny arrest approval if the standards for adequacy of evidence are not met. But, according to the finding, almost all provisional arrests meet those standards. This implies that almost all provisional arrests should be approved by the watch commander.
• "The expert has therefore recommended that, because the officers’ time spent obtaining approval is largely wasted, the watch commander’s approval no longer be required." - The officers have to take time out of their days to obtain arrest approvals. Almost all of the arrests meet the evidence standards. So, according to the expert (NOT according to the author), obtaining arrest approval is a waste of time, and the watch commander's approval should no longer be required. Why bother if nearly all of the arrests should be approved anyway? According to the expert, the Midville Police Department (MPD) should skip that step, saving the officers' valuable time.
• But the author isn't so sure about this recommendation and believes that it should be rejected as dangerous? Why?
• "Since there is no assurance that the watch commanders’ standards will continue to be observed once approval is no longer required." - Good point. When approval is required, most arrests meet the standards. But if the approval is NOT required, the officers might not try as hard to ensure that their arrests meet those standards. If their arrests do not require approval, then the officers have no incentive to meet those standards. Why go out of their way to meet the standards if nobody is going to check anyway?

Now that we understand the structure of the argument, it will be much easier to identify the roles of the boldfaced portions:


The author does not dispute the accuracy of the first BF portion, so the first part of (A) is inaccurate. Also, the second BF portion does not support the author's conclusion. Rather, it supports the expert's recommendation. Eliminate (A).


Again, the author does not dispute this observation. The second part of (B) might be okay, but the first part is definitely inaccurate. Eliminate (B).


Remember, the third and fourth sentences describe the government efficiency expert's point of view, not the author's point of view. The expert has observed that almost all provisional arrests meet the standards. This finding supports the expert's recommendation, so the first part looks good.

The expert believes that obtaining arrest approval is a waste of the officers' time. This judgment is thus based on the finding that most of the arrests meet the standards. The judgement is also used to support the expert's recommendation. In other words, most of the arrests meet the evidence standards, so why bother?

Choice (C) looks good.


The first is a finding that supports the expert's point of view, not the main conclusion of the editorial. The second is the expert's opinion and is definitely not the main conclusion of the editorial. Eliminate (D).


The first is a finding, not a conclusion. Regardless, the editorial does not evaluate this statement. The second is a judgment, not evidence, and it does not support the first BF portion. Eliminate (E).

(C) is the best option.