It is currently 18 Oct 2017, 02:42

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

3 KUDOS received
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3353

Kudos [?]: 9044 [3], given: 1152

From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Aug 2014, 11:38
3
This post received
KUDOS
13
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

66% (01:37) correct 34% (01:37) wrong based on 629 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily decreased by over 50%, 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. Criminologists have partially attributed this drop to proactive policing tactics such as “broken window po-licing,” wherein city officials immediately fixed small acts of vandalism and, as a result, lowered other types of criminal behavior. During this same period, the rate of violent crime in the United States steadily decreased by 28% (down to 500 violent crimes per 100,000 people).

Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information above?

(A) The decrease in the total crime rate in the United States caused the decrease in New York City’s crime rate.

(B) New York City spends more per capita on law enforcement than does the rest of the United States.

(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.

(D) Between 1994 and 2001, the violent crime rate in New York City was consistently higher than the national average.

(E) The violent crime rate in New York City will soon be below the national average.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS AND RESOURCES
Quant: 1. ALL GMATPrep questions Quant/Verbal 2. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 3. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 4. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version 5. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Quant Videos
Verbal:1. Verbal question bank and directories by Carcass 2. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Verbal Videos 3. Critical Reasoning_Oldy but goldy question banks 4. Sentence Correction_Oldy but goldy question banks 5. Reading-comprehension_Oldy but goldy question banks

Kudos [?]: 9044 [3], given: 1152

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2012
Posts: 22

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 50

Re: From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Aug 2014, 12:02
From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily decreased by over 50%, 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. Criminologists have partially attributed this drop to proactive policing tactics such as “broken window po-licing,” wherein city officials immediately fixed small acts of vandalism and, as a result, lowered other types of criminal behavior. During this same period, the rate of violent crime in the United States steadily decreased by 28% (down to 500 violent crimes per 100,000 people).


Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information above?

(A) The decrease in the total crime rate in the United States caused the decrease in New York City’s crime rate.

(B) New York City spends more per capita on law enforcement than does the rest of the United States.

(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.

(D) Between 1994 and 2001, the violent crime rate in New York City was consistently higher than the national average.

(E) The violent crime rate in New York City will soon be below the national average.[/quote]

IMO A

B The argument does not talks anywhere about spending
C This is a far fetched conclusion
D We don't know anything about national average
E Same as D

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 50

Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3353

Kudos [?]: 9044 [0], given: 1152

Re: From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Aug 2014, 13:25

Kudos [?]: 9044 [0], given: 1152

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 Mar 2014
Posts: 23

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 63

Concentration: Finance
GMAT Date: 09-27-2014
WE: Analyst (Computer Software)
Re: From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Aug 2014, 14:00
carcass wrote:
From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily decreased by over 50%, 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. Criminologists have partially attributed this drop to proactive policing tactics such as “broken window po-licing,” wherein city officials immediately fixed small acts of vandalism and, as a result, lowered other types of criminal behavior. During this same period, the rate of violent crime in the United States steadily decreased by 28% (down to 500 violent crimes per 100,000 people).


Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information above?

(A) The decrease in the total crime rate in the United States caused the decrease in New York City’s crime rate.
There is no evidence in the stimulus that NY is the cause
(B) New York City spends more per capita on law enforcement than does the rest of the United States.
Assumption
(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.
Assumption
(D) Between 1994 and 2001, the violent crime rate in New York City was consistently higher than the national average.
My Answer
(E) The violent crime rate in New York City will soon be below the national average.

Assumption, you don't know whats the future
_________________

Winners are rarely born, you will have to work hard and build yourself to become a winner
Cheers
RJ

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 63

Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3353

Kudos [?]: 9044 [0], given: 1152

Re: From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Aug 2014, 14:58
rj12 wrote:
carcass wrote:
From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily decreased by over 50%, 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. Criminologists have partially attributed this drop to proactive policing tactics such as “broken window po-licing,” wherein city officials immediately fixed small acts of vandalism and, as a result, lowered other types of criminal behavior. During this same period, the rate of violent crime in the United States steadily decreased by 28% (down to 500 violent crimes per 100,000 people).


Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information above?

(A) The decrease in the total crime rate in the United States caused the decrease in New York City’s crime rate.
There is no evidence in the stimulus that NY is the cause
(B) New York City spends more per capita on law enforcement than does the rest of the United States.
Assumption
(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.
Assumption
(D) Between 1994 and 2001, the violent crime rate in New York City was consistently higher than the national average.
My Answer
(E) The violent crime rate in New York City will soon be below the national average.

Assumption, you don't know whats the future


:?: :?:
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS AND RESOURCES
Quant: 1. ALL GMATPrep questions Quant/Verbal 2. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 3. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 4. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version 5. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Quant Videos
Verbal:1. Verbal question bank and directories by Carcass 2. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Verbal Videos 3. Critical Reasoning_Oldy but goldy question banks 4. Sentence Correction_Oldy but goldy question banks 5. Reading-comprehension_Oldy but goldy question banks

Kudos [?]: 9044 [0], given: 1152

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2010
Posts: 186

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 141

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Aug 2014, 16:14
carcass wrote:
From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily decreased by over 50%, 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. Criminologists have partially attributed this drop to proactive policing tactics such as “broken window po-licing,” wherein city officials immediately fixed small acts of vandalism and, as a result, lowered other types of criminal behavior. During this same period, the rate of violent crime in the United States steadily decreased by 28% (down to 500 violent crimes per 100,000 people).


Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information above?

(A) The decrease in the total crime rate in the United States caused the decrease in New York City’s crime rate.

(B) New York City spends more per capita on law enforcement than does the rest of the United States.

(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.

(D) Between 1994 and 2001, the violent crime rate in New York City was consistently higher than the national average.

(E) The violent crime rate in New York City will soon be below the national average.



IMO E,

A - Not relevant. No information about how national crime rate decline affected New York city's decline
B - No information about spending in the passage
C - Proactive policing is attributed only partially and it is not elaborately mentioned what are the other methods used to control the decline
D - Already mentioned in the passage. BEtween D and E, E sounds Better than D
E - This sounds better conclusion
_________________

-------------------------------------

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 141

Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3353

Kudos [?]: 9044 [0], given: 1152

Re: From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Aug 2014, 16:45

Kudos [?]: 9044 [0], given: 1152

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 15

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Concentration: Operations, Sustainability
GPA: 3.12
WE: Supply Chain Management (Manufacturing)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Aug 2014, 18:23
D is the correct answer

A is irrelevant
B out of scope
C out of scope
E can not be as it is predicting the future but in conclusion type question conclusion must be drawn from argument.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 19

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 4

Re: From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Aug 2014, 18:37
IMO C.
(A) The decrease in the total crime rate in the United States caused the decrease in New York City’s crime rate.
--The drop is attributed to city officials
(B) New York City spends more per capita on law enforcement than does the rest of the United States.
--no such information is given
(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.
Answer
(D) Between 1994 and 2001, the violent crime rate in New York City was consistently higher than the national average.
--consistency can not be verified in the question
(E) The violent crime rate in New York City will soon be below the national average.
--can't assume for future

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 4

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 25 Apr 2012
Posts: 724

Kudos [?]: 847 [1], given: 724

Location: India
GPA: 3.21
WE: Business Development (Other)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Aug 2014, 20:26
1
This post received
KUDOS
carcass wrote:
From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily decreased by over 50%, 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. Criminologists have partially attributed this drop to proactive policing tactics such as “broken window po-licing,” wherein city officials immediately fixed small acts of vandalism and, as a result, lowered other types of criminal behavior. During this same period, the rate of violent crime in the United States steadily decreased by 28% (down to 500 violent crimes per 100,000 people).


Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information above?

(A) The decrease in the total crime rate in the United States caused the decrease in New York City’s crime rate.

(B) New York City spends more per capita on law enforcement than does the rest of the United States.

(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.

(D) Between 1994 and 2001, the violent crime rate in New York City was consistently higher than the national average.

(E) The violent crime rate in New York City will soon be below the national average.



Carcass san,

In My Opinion ans is D.

(A) The decrease in the total crime rate in the United States caused the decrease in New York City’s crime rate.------> Need not be because some other city would have seen even higher % decrease and may have contributed more to the decrease in TCR in United states.

(B) New York City spends more per capita on law enforcement than does the rest of the United States. ----------> This is no where discussed in the passage or neither there is any link between law enforcement and Spending

(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.-----> Each city/state is different...We cannot be really sure

(D) Between 1994 and 2001, the violent crime rate in New York City was consistently higher than the national average. ------> This can be the case...The total crime rate in US in the period would have come down from 561/0.72~800 to 561 which is well below CR in Newyork

(E) The violent crime rate in New York City will soon be below the national average.----> We don't know if this will happen...It is in future...
_________________


“If you can't fly then run, if you can't run then walk, if you can't walk then crawl, but whatever you do you have to keep moving forward.”

Kudos [?]: 847 [1], given: 724

2 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2014
Posts: 6

Kudos [?]: 3 [2], given: 15

Schools: Fuqua, ISB '15 (A), BYU
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V33
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Aug 2014, 20:40
2
This post received
KUDOS
carcass wrote:
From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily decreased by over 50%, 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. Criminologists have partially attributed this drop to proactive policing tactics such as “broken window po-licing,” wherein city officials immediately fixed small acts of vandalism and, as a result, lowered other types of criminal behavior. During this same period, the rate of violent crime in the United States steadily decreased by 28% (down to 500 violent crimes per 100,000 people).


Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information above?

(A) The decrease in the total crime rate in the United States caused the decrease in New York City’s crime rate.

(B) New York City spends more per capita on law enforcement than does the rest of the United States.

(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.

(D) Between 1994 and 2001, the violent crime rate in New York City was consistently higher than the national average.

(E) The violent crime rate in New York City will soon be below the national average.




For conclusion questions we need to find a choice which can be proved from the passage.

(A) The decrease in the total crime rate in the United States caused the decrease in New York City’s crime rate.
This is a causal statement and nothing has been mentioned about the relation between decrease in New York and United States crime rate
(B) New York City spends more per capita on law enforcement than does the rest of the United States.
Nothing has been mentioned about per capita expenditure
(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.
This statement also has no valid prove in the passage

(D) Between 1994 and 2001, the violent crime rate in New York City was consistently higher than the national average.
It has been mentioned that during the same period crime rate has come down by 28 % so the max crime rate was 500*1.28 which is lower than 1861. Hence this is the answer

(E) The violent crime rate in New York City will soon be below the national average.
This is a prediction and cant be validated


Answer D

Kudos [?]: 3 [2], given: 15

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: PLAY HARD OR GO HOME
Joined: 25 Feb 2014
Posts: 175

Kudos [?]: 183 [0], given: 623

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: Mannheim
GMAT 1: 560 Q46 V22
GPA: 3.1
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Aug 2014, 22:04
Nice question ..!! many tempting answer choices..! D clearly wins..! others seem to be a bit extreme or assuming a bit..! what should be the level of this question Carcass ?
_________________

ITS NOT OVER , UNTIL I WIN ! I CAN, AND I WILL .PERIOD.

Kudos [?]: 183 [0], given: 623

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Sep 2010
Posts: 831

Kudos [?]: 281 [0], given: 61

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Aug 2014, 22:28
D is the only best option: Between 1994 and 2001, the violent crime rate in New York City was consistently higher than the national average.

Kudos [?]: 281 [0], given: 61

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Aug 2014
Posts: 14

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 2

Re: From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2014, 01:55
I will opt for 'D'

the decrease in crime rate in NY was 50% and stood at 851 persons per 100000
where as the United states decrease in crime rate was 28%....to 500 per 100000

Please provide the OA.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 2

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 24 Mar 2010
Posts: 113

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 105

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2014, 08:19
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 conclusion

carcass 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
--> Incorrect

carcass 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. Incorrect

carcass 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. - Incorrect

carcass 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!!! Correct

carcass 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
_________________

Start to fall in love with GMAT <3

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 105

1 KUDOS received
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3353

Kudos [?]: 9044 [1], given: 1152

Re: From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2014, 11:16
1
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Quote:
This is an Inference question, as demonstrated by the phrase, “which of the following conclusions is
best supported by...” Since the question is Iooking for a conclusion that must be true based off of the
information given, our first line of attack for thìs problem is to evaluate whether each answer choice
contains extra information not found in the premises.

Answer choice “A” contains extra information, and thus cannot be true. Proving that something is
“causing” something else is a high standard, and there Is nothing in the premises that explicitly shows
the decrease in the United States crime rate caused the decrease in New York’s crime rate. Correlation
does not mean causation.

The body of the question does not contain any information on Iaw enforcement spending, so answer
choice “B” fails the “no new information” filter. A conclusion that contains new information may or
may not be true.

Answer choice “C” contains a prediction of the future, implying that the Iaw enforcement techniques
of one area could be successfully applied to another area. Such conclusions are also very difficult to
prove. The Testmaker is hiding two fatal mistakes in answer choice First, it assumes that the
techniques of a subsample (New York City) can be successfully applied to a larger area (the United
States.) This Is an overgeneralization. Second, it predicts future effects based on present trends. Until
the future is known, this can never be explicitly “proven. There is no information about the future.

The Testmaker tries to hide answer choice “D” by requiring a bit of math and hoping the novice test
taker confuses percentage changes with actual values. The violent crime rate in the United States
steadily dropped 28%, down to 500 violent crimes per 100,000 people. If we notice that 28% is
approximately 2/7, it is very easy to approximate what the crime rate was before the drop:

500 = 0.72 x that is roughly 700

Therefore, the violent crime rate in the United States steadily decreased from 700 to 500 (violent
crimes per 100,000). Since the violent crime rate of New York City decreased from 1,861 to 851 (violent
crimes per 100,000) during this same time period, New York City’s rate was consistently higher than
the national average. Answer choice D is true, and therefore is the correct conclusion.

Answer choice “E” contains another prediction of the future. As mentioned earlier, until the future is
known, this can never be explicitly uproven “ There is no information about the future in the problem,
so “E” contains additional information. We cannot know what will soon be.


Thank you guys for your answers.

Hope the OE is pretty much clear

For those who wonder which is the level of the question is at least 650 but I would stop to wonder about

First of all during the exam you do not know which is which about a question.

Secondly, and here i could report a clear example: think about a combinatorics problem, despite of your current score you will see always 2/3 questions. Therefore, you are in the 400 or in the 770 si the same. As such, probability and combinatoris we do know are tough questions but this is not of a preview of your score.

The only thing you care about is being aggressive on a question (whatever is its level) and move on...........

Do not esitate to ask if something is unclear
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS AND RESOURCES
Quant: 1. ALL GMATPrep questions Quant/Verbal 2. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 3. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 4. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version 5. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Quant Videos
Verbal:1. Verbal question bank and directories by Carcass 2. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Verbal Videos 3. Critical Reasoning_Oldy but goldy question banks 4. Sentence Correction_Oldy but goldy question banks 5. Reading-comprehension_Oldy but goldy question banks

Kudos [?]: 9044 [1], given: 1152

Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 531

Kudos [?]: 618 [0], given: 606

Concentration: Technology, Other
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Aug 2014, 05:27
From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily decreased by over 50%, 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. Criminologists have partially attributed this drop to proactive policing tactics such as “broken window po-licing,” wherein city officials immediately fixed small acts of vandalism and, as a result, lowered other types of criminal behavior. During this same period, the rate of violent crime in the United States steadily decreased by 28% (down to 500 violent crimes per 100,000 people).
Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information above?
>>Correct answer shall pass the fact test based upon the argument mentioned.
(A) The decrease in the total crime rate in the United States caused the decrease in New York City’s crime rate.
>>Nothing to prove this.These two events occurred at same time but there are no proofs or links to confirm this.
(B) New York City spends more per capita on law enforcement than does the rest of the United States.
>>No info regarding this in argument.
(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.
>>No info regarding this in argument.
(D) Between 1994 and 2001, the violent crime rate in New York City was consistently higher than the national average.
>> Tempting as we have given all the figures to prove this. After calc it passes the fact test.
(E) The violent crime rate in New York City will soon be below the national average.
>> Nope. Nothing in argument to infer this.
_________________

--------------------------------------------------------
Regards :)

Kudos [?]: 618 [0], given: 606

3 KUDOS received
VP
VP
User avatar
S
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1205

Kudos [?]: 866 [3], given: 75

Location: India
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Feb 2016, 11:13
3
This post received
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily decreased by over 50%, 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. Criminologists have partially attributed this drop to proactive policing tactics such as “broken window po-licing,” wherein city officials immediately fixed small acts of vandalism and, as a result, lowered other types of criminal behavior. During this same period, the rate of violent crime in the United States steadily decreased by 28% (down to 500 violent crimes per 100,000 people).


Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information above?

(A) The decrease in the total crime rate in the United States caused the decrease in New York City’s crime rate.

(B) New York City spends more per capita on law enforcement than does the rest of the United States.

(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.

(D) Between 1994 and 2001, the violent crime rate in New York City was consistently higher than the national average.

(E) The violent crime rate in New York City will soon be below the national average.
_________________

The only time you can lose is when you give up. Try hard and you will suceed.
Thanks = Kudos. Kudos are appreciated

http://gmatclub.com/forum/rules-for-posting-in-verbal-gmat-forum-134642.html
When you post a question Pls. Provide its source & TAG your questions
Avoid posting from unreliable sources.


My posts
http://gmatclub.com/forum/beauty-of-coordinate-geometry-213760.html#p1649924
http://gmatclub.com/forum/calling-all-march-april-gmat-takers-who-want-to-cross-213154.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/possessive-pronouns-200496.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/double-negatives-206717.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-greatest-integer-function-223595.html#p1721773
https://gmatclub.com/forum/improve-reading-habit-233410.html#p1802265

Kudos [?]: 866 [3], given: 75

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 24 Jul 2014
Posts: 98

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 36

Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Feb 2016, 20:41
The crime rates in NY decreased from 1800 to 800 out out of 100,000 people
and the rate of crime decreased to 500 out 100,000 over all

This is only satisfied when the other regions have far less people committing crime
That small number will tend to dilute the concentration of prime as you take more and more people into account.

That means the rate was always high in NYC trough the time period and the rate was always low in rest of US. That is why the consistent pattern is shown in the graphs

Hence the answer must be (D)
_________________

The Mind ~ Muscle Connection
My GMAT Journey is Complete.Going to start the MBA in Information Management from 2016
Good Luck everyone.

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 36

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10117

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jun 2016, 22:33
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Re: From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily   [#permalink] 08 Jun 2016, 22:33

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 25 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.