GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 15 Oct 2019, 02:24

### 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

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

# Effective street lighting has been proven to reduce crime.

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Oct 2013
Posts: 411
Effective street lighting has been proven to reduce crime.  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2014, 09:15
5
9
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

63% (01:23) correct 37% (01:28) wrong based on 684 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Effective street lighting has been proven to reduce crime. The city of Shambolia improved its lighting especially in areas where crime levels were particularly high. No substantial change in the amount of criminal activity in those areas was reported. Improved lighting alone is not sufficient to combat crime.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A) The first is a general opinion; the second opposes the idea expressed by this opinion.
B) The first is a conclusion; the second is a premise that contradicts this conclusion.
C) The first presents factual information; the second is a conclusion based on this information.
D) The first is a premise; the second concludes the argument by challenging this premise.
E) The first is a piece of evidence; the second makes an inference based on this evidence.
Intern
Joined: 16 May 2014
Posts: 14
Re: Effective street lighting has been proven to reduce crime.  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2014, 06:06
10
2
GmatDestroyer2013 wrote:
Hi ,

I chose B ... can somebody please correct me ...

Thanks

Hi GmatDestroyer2013

Let me try to explain the solution to this question.

The key to solving Bolf Face questions such as this is to understand the argument first, identify the main conclusion and then identify the role played by each Bold Face statement with respect to the main conclusion. When we say 'role played by each statement', we actually should try to get into the shoes of the author and try to understand his purpose of writing the statement. So we should ask - "Why did the author write this?" everytime we read a BF statement.

Let us understand the passage first:
Statement 1: Effective street lighting has been proven to reduce crime.
This is an information that has been presented by the author. We do not really know who or how this has been proven. We also do not know if people accept the proofs or not. We just know that it has been proven that: effective street lighting --> reduce crimes.

Statement 2: The city of Shambolia improved its lighting especially in areas where crime levels were particularly high.
This is a fact stated by the author. Since we have seen in the previous statement that effective street lighting --> reduce crimes, therefore, we can expect that in this case the crime levels would have come down.

Statement 3: No substantial change in the amount of criminal activity in those areas was reported.
This is another fact that the author presents - that surprisingly, no substantial change was seen by increasing lighting in Sambolia. So Statement 2 and Statement 3 combined gives an example that goes against the information in Statement 1.

Statement 4: Improved lighting alone is not sufficient to combat crime.
The author is basically arriving at this based on the example of Shambolia stated above. He says that since Shambolia did not see a substantial reduction in crime levels after improving lighting system, therefore, improved lighting lone is insufficient to reduce crime. So, Statement 4 is a conclusion drawn by the author.
The author is trying to make us believe through the argument that : "Improved lighting alone is not sufficient to combat crime".

Once done with conclusion identification process, let us identify the roles played by each Bold Face statement in the argument.
BF1: Effective street lighting has been proven to reduce crime.
It is basically an information which is opposed by the author's conclusion. Therefore, the statement acts as a counter-premise here.

BF2: Improved lighting alone is not sufficient to combat crime.
This is the main conclusion of the argument.

With the above analysis, let us now evauate each option statement:
A) The first is a general opinion; the second opposes the idea expressed by this opinion.
Is BF1 a general opinion? No, its not. (refer to Statement 1 analysis)

B) The first is a conclusion; the second is a premise that contradicts this conclusion.
Is BF1 a conclusion in the argument? Has the author concluded that "Effective street lighting has been proven to reduce crime"? Every conclusion should have a premise stated. There is no premise here, BF1 is just a mere statement.
Also, is BF2 a counter premise for BF1? BF2 is a conclusion. The roles have been reversed here. BF1 is a counter premise for BF2. Not the other way round.

C) The first presents factual information; the second is a conclusion based on this information.
Is BF2 based on BF1? In other words, does BF1 support BF2? The answer is no, it does not.

D) The first is a premise; the second concludes the argument by challenging this premise.
BF1 is a counter premise. Therefore it is a premise that is being challenged by BF2. This is therefore the correct option.

E) The first is a piece of evidence; the second makes an inference based on this evidence.
Is BF2 an inference that can be drawn from BF1? Absolutely not since their directions are opposite.

Hope it helps!
##### General Discussion
Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2013
Posts: 73
Re: Effective street lighting has been proven to reduce crime.  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 May 2014, 05:24
Hi ,

I chose B ... can somebody please correct me ...

Thanks
Manager
Joined: 25 Apr 2014
Posts: 93
Re: Effective street lighting has been proven to reduce crime.  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2014, 11:12
Hi
Can someone explain me this case where we say "something has been proved by experts" just as in question "Effective street lighting has been proven to reduce crime", can we consider this type of statement as an "Evidence/Fact"?
Manager
Joined: 02 May 2014
Posts: 91
Schools: ESADE '16, HKU'16, SMU '16
GMAT 1: 620 Q46 V30
Re: Effective street lighting has been proven to reduce crime.  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2014, 10:47
maggie27 wrote:
Hi
Can someone explain me this case where we say "something has been proved by experts" just as in question "Effective street lighting has been proven to reduce crime", can we consider this type of statement as an "Evidence/Fact"?

Hi,
Proven denotes that its a 'Fact'.
Infact studies, findings, evidence, etc are all 'Facts'.
SVP
Status: It's near - I can see.
Joined: 13 Apr 2013
Posts: 1685
Location: India
GPA: 3.01
WE: Engineering (Real Estate)
Effective street lighting has been proven to reduce crime.  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Mar 2019, 11:10
goodyear2013 wrote:
Effective street lighting has been proven to reduce crime. The city of Shambolia improved its lighting especially in areas where crime levels were particularly high. No substantial change in the amount of criminal activity in those areas was reported. Improved lighting alone is not sufficient to combat crime.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

Use POE extensively in Verbal section. It really improves accuracy.

It is easy to detect that BF 2 is the main conclusion of the passage the goes against the claim made in the first line of the passage BF 1.

With this understanding let us use POE.

A) The first is a general opinion; the second opposes the idea expressed by this opinion.

BF 1 is not an opinion but a claim, though BF2 opposies BF1. Eliminate

B) The first is a conclusion; the second is a premise that contradicts this conclusion.

Opposite is true. BF 1 is a premise and BF2 is the conclusion. Eliminate

C) The first presents factual information; the second is a conclusion based on this information.

BF 1 does not provide a factual info, but the info provided in the passage goes against the BF1. BF 2 is not based on the info given in BF 1. Eliminate.

D) The first is a premise; the second concludes the argument by challenging this premise.

Correct

E) The first is a piece of evidence; the second makes an inference based on this evidence.

BF1 is not an evidence, it is a claim that is opposed by the evidence provided in the passage. Eliminate

_________________
"Do not watch clock; Do what it does. KEEP GOING."
Manager
Joined: 19 Sep 2017
Posts: 204
Location: United Kingdom
GPA: 3.9
WE: Account Management (Other)
Effective street lighting has been proven to reduce crime.  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Mar 2019, 02:42
goodyear2013 wrote:
Effective street lighting has been proven to reduce crime. The city of Shambolia improved its lighting especially in areas where crime levels were particularly high. No substantial change in the amount of criminal activity in those areas was reported. Improved lighting alone is not sufficient to combat crime.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A) The first is a general opinion; the second opposes the idea expressed by this opinion.
B) The first is a conclusion; the second is a premise that contradicts this conclusion.
C) The first presents factual information; the second is a conclusion based on this information.
D) The first is a premise; the second concludes the argument by challenging this premise.
E) The first is a piece of evidence; the second makes an inference based on this evidence.

Hi Fellow soldiers,

The argument starts with a premise, which happens to be an opinion or an outcome(has been proven). Then author shifts to current city that is under consideration and presents facts that took place and their result, which is opposite to the solution presented in premise. Then author concludes that Improved lighting alone is not sufficient to combat crime.

Second, statement 1 does not pass the conclusion test. It does not sound like a conclusion when read with a conclusion marker, such as therefore.

Based on all this, Option D fits well.

I’d appreciate if anyone could share their strategy of handling passages. I spend more than alloted time per question to comprehend the information presented and answer it.
_________________
Cheers!!
SVP
Status: It's near - I can see.
Joined: 13 Apr 2013
Posts: 1685
Location: India
GPA: 3.01
WE: Engineering (Real Estate)
Effective street lighting has been proven to reduce crime.  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Mar 2019, 02:59
1
Doer01 wrote:
goodyear2013 wrote:
Effective street lighting has been proven to reduce crime. The city of Shambolia improved its lighting especially in areas where crime levels were particularly high. No substantial change in the amount of criminal activity in those areas was reported. Improved lighting alone is not sufficient to combat crime.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A) The first is a general opinion; the second opposes the idea expressed by this opinion.
B) The first is a conclusion; the second is a premise that contradicts this conclusion.
C) The first presents factual information; the second is a conclusion based on this information.
D) The first is a premise; the second concludes the argument by challenging this premise.
E) The first is a piece of evidence; the second makes an inference based on this evidence.

Hi Fellow soldiers,

The argument starts with a premise, which happens to be an opinion or an outcome(has been proven). Then author shifts to current city that is under consideration and presents facts that took place and their result, which is opposite to the solution presented in premise. Then author concludes that Improved lighting alone is not sufficient to combat crime.

Second, statement 1 does not pass the conclusion test. It does not sound like a conclusion when read with a conclusion marker, such as therefore.

Based on all this, Option D fits well.

I’d appreciate if anyone could share their strategy of handling passages. I spend more than alloted time per question to comprehend the information presented and answer it.

Though understanding of passage is mandatory, POE is a very useful tool in Verbal when you are short of time.

Choose one of the BF statements that you can understand easily. And try to eliminate choices which are wrong according to that BF statement. This will help you eliminate at least 2 to 3 answer choices, and you can easily focus of the difficult BF statement afterwards. Don't try to check both BF statements at a time as it will confuse you and more so on harder problems.
_________________
"Do not watch clock; Do what it does. KEEP GOING."
Effective street lighting has been proven to reduce crime.   [#permalink] 30 Mar 2019, 02:59
Display posts from previous: Sort by