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 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
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 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
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.
29 Jun 2024, 04:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
81% (01:36) correct
19%
(02:00)
wrong
based on 507
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In a well-publicized effort to reduce crime, police in Morristown began in 1995 to use surveillance cameras to monitor the downtown shopping district for crime. According to police statistics, however, somewhat more crimes were committed in the downtown shopping district in 1995 than in 1994, whereas elsewhere in the city the number of crimes remained unchanged. Clearly, then, the surveillance cameras installed downtown completely failed in their purpose in 1995.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) Although the fact that surveillance cameras had been installed was vigorously publicized throughout 1995, their exact location within the downtown shopping district was not revealed to the public.
(B) The surveillance cameras operated very reliably in 1995, and they were out of service less frequently than had originally been projected.
(C) The surveillance cameras enabled police to detect numerous crimes that would not otherwise have been reflected in the police crime statistics.
(D) The downtown shopping district had a higher incidence of crime in 1994 than any other area of Morristown.
(E) The proportion of crimes committed in Morristown for which arrests were made was lower in 1995 than in 1994.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) Although the fact that surveillance cameras had been installed was vigorously publicized throughout 1995, their exact location within the downtown shopping district was not revealed to the public.
(B) The surveillance cameras operated very reliably in 1995, and they were out of service less frequently than had originally been projected.
(C) The surveillance cameras enabled police to detect numerous crimes that would not otherwise have been reflected in the police crime statistics.
(D) The downtown shopping district had a higher incidence of crime in 1994 than any other area of Morristown.
(E) The proportion of crimes committed in Morristown for which arrests were made was lower in 1995 than in 1994.
04 Jul 2024, 12:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
In a well-publicized effort to reduce crime, police in Morristown began in 1995 to use surveillance cameras to monitor the downtown shopping district for crime. According to police statistics, however, somewhat more crimes were committed in the downtown shopping district in 1995 than in 1994, whereas elsewhere in the city the number of crimes remained unchanged. Clearly, then, the surveillance cameras installed downtown completely failed in their purpose in 1995.
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
Clearly, then, the surveillance cameras installed downtown completely failed in their purpose in 1995.
The support for the conclusion is the following:
According to police statistics, however, somewhat more crimes were committed in the downtown shopping district in 1995 than in 1994, whereas elsewhere in the city the number of crimes remained unchanged.
We see that the reasoning of the argument is basically the following: According to police statistics, the number of crimes in the shopping district increased year over year whereas the number of crimes in other areas did not increase. So, crime increased where the cameras were but not elsewhere. Therefore, it's clear that the cameras failed in their purpose of reducing crime.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
This is a Weaken question, and the correct answer will weaken the case for the conclusion. Specifically, in this case, the correct answer will indicate that it may not be clear that the cameras failed in their purpose of reducing crime.
(A) Although the fact that surveillance cameras had been installed was vigorously publicized throughout 1995, their exact location within the downtown shopping district was not revealed to the public.
This choice has no effect on the case for the conclusion.
After all, regardless of whether people were aware of where the cameras were located, the fact that the number of crimes increased year over year where the cameras were but not where they were not indicates that the cameras didn't accomplish their purpose.
Is it possible that the cameras would have worked better if people had known where they were located? Perhaps. At the same time, regardless of what could have occurred, the simple fact is that what did occur is that, according to police statistics, the number of crimes increased where the cameras were, and that information supports the conclusion.
Eliminate.
(B) The surveillance cameras operated very reliably in 1995, and they were out of service less frequently than had originally been projected.
This choice is about something different from what the argument is about. Whereas the argument is about whether the cameras accomplished their purpose of reducing crime, this choice is about whether the cameras operated, in other words, whether they were in service and captured images.
So,, this choice has no effect on the argument.
After all, even if the cameras operated reliably, statistics seem to indicate that they didn't cause a reduction in crime, and that information supports the conclusion.
Eliminate.
(C) The surveillance cameras enabled police to detect numerous crimes that would not otherwise have been reflected in the police crime statistics.
This choice is interesting.
After reading this choice, I went back to the passage to review what it says, and found the following:
According to police statistics, however, somewhat more crimes were committed in the downtown shopping district
So, the evidence used to support the conclusion that the cameras failed in their purpose is not an increase in the actual number of crimes committed; it's an increase in the number of crimes commited "according to police statistics."
Thus, if what this choice says is true, then it's possible that what happened is not that there was an increase in crime in the shopping district but rather that statistics showed an increase because the cameras enabled police to detect crimes that they would not otherwise have detected.
So, if this choice is true, then it's not clear that the cameras failed in their purpose. After all, if this choice is true, then it's posssible that there was a reduction in crime in the shopping district but that reduction wasn't reflected in the statistics because the cameras enabled the police to detect more crimes and thus caused an increase in crimes recorded.
So, this choice provides a reason to doubt the conclusion.
Keep.
(D) The downtown shopping district had a higher incidence of crime in 1994 than any other area of Morristown.
This choice has a vibe of weakening the argument because we could read this choice and think something along the lines of "Oh, OK, the cameras weren't the issue. All that's going on is that the shopping district is a high-crime area."
The issue with that line of thinking is that, even if the shopping district is a high-crime area, crime in that area still appears to have increased after the cameras were installed, and the fact that crime seems to have increased still appears to support the conclusion, even if the shopping district is a high crime area.
So, this choice has a vibe of weakening the argument but doesn't really weaken it.
Eliminate.
(E) The proportion of crimes committed in Morristown for which arrests were made was lower in 1995 than in 1994.
If anything, this choice is in line with, rather than weakens the case for, the conclusion.
After all, the fact that the proportion of crimes committed in Morristown for which arrests were made was lower in 1995 than in 1994 indicates that not only did the number of crimes increase but also the police had less success in their efforts to stop crime. So, it appears that the cameras not only didn't prevent crime but also didn't help with catching those who committed crimes, a fact that, if anything, tends to confirm that the cameras did not accomplish their purpose.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: C
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
Clearly, then, the surveillance cameras installed downtown completely failed in their purpose in 1995.
The support for the conclusion is the following:
According to police statistics, however, somewhat more crimes were committed in the downtown shopping district in 1995 than in 1994, whereas elsewhere in the city the number of crimes remained unchanged.
We see that the reasoning of the argument is basically the following: According to police statistics, the number of crimes in the shopping district increased year over year whereas the number of crimes in other areas did not increase. So, crime increased where the cameras were but not elsewhere. Therefore, it's clear that the cameras failed in their purpose of reducing crime.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
This is a Weaken question, and the correct answer will weaken the case for the conclusion. Specifically, in this case, the correct answer will indicate that it may not be clear that the cameras failed in their purpose of reducing crime.
(A) Although the fact that surveillance cameras had been installed was vigorously publicized throughout 1995, their exact location within the downtown shopping district was not revealed to the public.
This choice has no effect on the case for the conclusion.
After all, regardless of whether people were aware of where the cameras were located, the fact that the number of crimes increased year over year where the cameras were but not where they were not indicates that the cameras didn't accomplish their purpose.
Is it possible that the cameras would have worked better if people had known where they were located? Perhaps. At the same time, regardless of what could have occurred, the simple fact is that what did occur is that, according to police statistics, the number of crimes increased where the cameras were, and that information supports the conclusion.
Eliminate.
(B) The surveillance cameras operated very reliably in 1995, and they were out of service less frequently than had originally been projected.
This choice is about something different from what the argument is about. Whereas the argument is about whether the cameras accomplished their purpose of reducing crime, this choice is about whether the cameras operated, in other words, whether they were in service and captured images.
So,, this choice has no effect on the argument.
After all, even if the cameras operated reliably, statistics seem to indicate that they didn't cause a reduction in crime, and that information supports the conclusion.
Eliminate.
(C) The surveillance cameras enabled police to detect numerous crimes that would not otherwise have been reflected in the police crime statistics.
This choice is interesting.
After reading this choice, I went back to the passage to review what it says, and found the following:
According to police statistics, however, somewhat more crimes were committed in the downtown shopping district
So, the evidence used to support the conclusion that the cameras failed in their purpose is not an increase in the actual number of crimes committed; it's an increase in the number of crimes commited "according to police statistics."
Thus, if what this choice says is true, then it's possible that what happened is not that there was an increase in crime in the shopping district but rather that statistics showed an increase because the cameras enabled police to detect crimes that they would not otherwise have detected.
So, if this choice is true, then it's not clear that the cameras failed in their purpose. After all, if this choice is true, then it's posssible that there was a reduction in crime in the shopping district but that reduction wasn't reflected in the statistics because the cameras enabled the police to detect more crimes and thus caused an increase in crimes recorded.
So, this choice provides a reason to doubt the conclusion.
Keep.
(D) The downtown shopping district had a higher incidence of crime in 1994 than any other area of Morristown.
This choice has a vibe of weakening the argument because we could read this choice and think something along the lines of "Oh, OK, the cameras weren't the issue. All that's going on is that the shopping district is a high-crime area."
The issue with that line of thinking is that, even if the shopping district is a high-crime area, crime in that area still appears to have increased after the cameras were installed, and the fact that crime seems to have increased still appears to support the conclusion, even if the shopping district is a high crime area.
So, this choice has a vibe of weakening the argument but doesn't really weaken it.
Eliminate.
(E) The proportion of crimes committed in Morristown for which arrests were made was lower in 1995 than in 1994.
If anything, this choice is in line with, rather than weakens the case for, the conclusion.
After all, the fact that the proportion of crimes committed in Morristown for which arrests were made was lower in 1995 than in 1994 indicates that not only did the number of crimes increase but also the police had less success in their efforts to stop crime. So, it appears that the cameras not only didn't prevent crime but also didn't help with catching those who committed crimes, a fact that, if anything, tends to confirm that the cameras did not accomplish their purpose.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: C
General Discussion
04 Sep 2025, 09:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
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.
