This question states 3 facts:
1. 1994-2001: violent crime
in New York City decreased from a rate of 1,861 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 1994 down to 851 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2001
2. Criminologists have partially attributed this drop to proactive policing tactics.
3. Observed phenomenon in
the U.S during this time: the rate of violent crime decreased by 28% down to 500 violent crimes per 100,000 people.
carcass wrote:
Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information above?
This question ask to draw
conclusion -->
All given information is absolutely true!-->
There is no need to assume other things to draw this conclusioncarcass wrote:
(A) The decrease in the total crime rate in the United States caused the decrease in New York City’s crime rate.
1) That X and Y coexist does not mean that X causes Y or vice versa. If we want to conclude X cause Y, we have to assume other things.
2) The given information already mentioned that this drop in New York city caused by proactive policing tactics
-->
Incorrectcarcass wrote:
(B) New York City spends more per capita on law enforcement than does the rest of the United States.
-->
Out of scope. Per captia on law enforcement is not mentioned at all in the argument.
Incorrectcarcass wrote:
(C) If the rest of the United States were to adopt law enforcement tactics similar to those of New York City, national violent crime rates would continue to fall.
We need to assume other things to get this conclusion. For example: the rest of the US will have similar conditions to apply this law enforcement. -
Incorrectcarcass wrote:
(D) Between 1994 and 2001, the violent crime rate in New York City was consistently higher than the national average.
During 1994-2001: 1)
in NY city: violent crime decreased from a rate of
1,861 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 1994 down to
851 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2001
2)
the whole US: the rate of violent crime decreased by
28% from about
609 violent crimes per 100,000 people to
500 violent crimes per 100,000 people.-->
Clearly, when we calculate the real number of violent crime rate, we know that this conclusion is correct based on the given information.Yeah, 609 is lower than 851, yeah!!! Correctcarcass wrote:
(E) The violent crime rate in New York City will soon be below the national average.
Out of scope: The argument only talks about 194-2001. No information provided to predict future.
Incorrect