Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover

Question

Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released from prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

(B) Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.

(C) The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

(D) Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.

(E) The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.

egmat · Accepted Answer

Hi Nitin, Let's struggle on this together

Even though you have rejected option A, your reason is still not correct. So, there's more to learn here

Before we look at option A again, let's look at the simple examples of negation that I asked you to attempt: Statement: He is unlikely to kill anyone. To negate any statement, you need to first understand the meaning of the statement. Reliance on rules (negating the verb etc) is not always helpful. What is the meaning of the above statement? It means that there is very less chance that he will kill anyone. So, it is a milder version of saying that He will not kill anyone. Right? Now, what will be the negation of this statement? Negation means saying something exactly opposite of the original statement. The negation would be a milder version of "He will kill someone" (If he kills anyone, the original statement falls apart. He need not kill everybody to breakdown the original statement. Even if he kills one person, the original statement falls apart) Now, the negation would be "He is likely to kill someone". Now, what if you just said "He is likely to kill anyone". What would it mean? It would mean that any person who comes in front of him is likely to be killed. In other words, it means that he is likely to kill everyone. But you know now that this is not what we require in the negation. Hope this part is clear!

If not, spend some more time on it before moving forward. Coming to option A now, The negation of option A would be: Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is likely to deter some people from crimes that they might otherwise have committed. Now, here you need to clearly understand the original meaning of option A. Only then would you be able to see how exactly the above negation is arrived at. What does this negated statement means? It means that "not taking college-level courses" is actually good for some people as it deters them from crime. Right? Now, it does weaken the conclusion, which indicates that we should offer college-level courses. Right? But how should negation of an assumption affect the conclusion? Should it weaken the conclusion or break it down? The answer is that the negation of an assumption should break-down the conclusion. In other words, once the assumption is negated, we should not have any belief in the validity of the conclusion. Now, this is not the case here. Agreed that option A indicates that not taking college level course will help some people but what about the rest (or even majority) of the people? If the college level courses help majority of the people, then we should have them even if some people are benefited from not having them. (So, you can see the conclusion can still hold even after negating option A) Now coming to option C, We are both saying the same thing, Nitin

I am saying they are likely to commit fewer crimes. You are saying they are less likely to commit crimes. See there is a word "fewer" in my sentence, which is missing in yours. Both mean the same.

I hope it helps! Please let me know if you still have questions

Thanks, Chiranjeev

nzgmat · Answer

I picked C.

If the inmates who chose to take college class were already less likely to commit crimes after release, then taking away access to college classes may not have any affect on their crime rates after prison. 

Sinced the conclusion states that "inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates", this conclusion must assume that all inmates have the same likelihood to commit a crime after release and it's the college classes that reduces this likelihood.

ben928 · Answer

C as well: The argument claims that inmates who take college level courses are less likely to commit crimes when they get out. But it may be that those inmates who had taken those classes did so because they seek out education and a way out of crime, thus less likely to commit a crime with or w/o the college level classes. Option C clarifies that prior to taking the classes, all inmates are just as likely to commit crimes when they are released, and that the college classes reduce this likelihood.

vannbj · Answer

I don't get your logic for A. C works to me. If we hold that the courses didn't actually affect the proclivity of released felons to recommit crimes like C infers (because the better behavior wasn't due to the education, rather this good group sought out education) then the narrorator's point against the governor's plan falls apart because the governor's change will actually not encourage criminal behavior.

chetan2u · Answer

hi , the logic by which i replied A is that in C i think there is change in scope.....
 the passage is concerned if guv's plan "to  deny  inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses" would be helpful however the scope is shifted in C to if these  courses are helpful ..... only A is the assumption closest to scope

GSM2010 · Answer

The following is Ron Purewal's (i.e the GOD of GMAT verbal) explanation:

nah, this should definitely be (c). you probably just have the wrong answer key.

the argument depends upon the assumption that eliminating college-level courses will have an effect on inmates' rates of recidivism ("counter to the governor's ultimate goal"). in other words, the argument is assuming that the college-level courses CAUSE differences in the inmates' behavior.

if you're going to argue that X causes Y, one necessary precondition (assumption) is that Y DOESN'T cause X. 
this is precisely what is asserted in (c), which should be the correct answer.

--

not only is (a) in incorrect assumption, but (a) actually runs EXACTLY COUNTER to the argument.

if the presence/absence of college courses will NOT DETER crime, then that is essentially saying that it has no effect. 
therefore, since there's no effect, this action will NOT be "counter to the governor's ultimate goal".

hence (a) is not only a wrong assumption; it actually undermines the argument!
_________________
ron purewal

instructor, mgmat

gurpreetsingh · Answer

C:) The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

This can not be the assumption. If you negate the assumption, it should weaken the argument. But after negation this option strengthen the argument.

D and E are out of scope.

B). We are not concerned with general population. This comparison is not relevant.

Thus by POE -> A

A. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed. 
is actually
A. Being able to take college-level courses while in prison is likely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

Yes A is an assumption. if you negate this A, the conclusion is weaken.

Nitinaka19 · Answer

Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough
on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Part of this effort has been to deny inmates
the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to
the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken
such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates. Which of the following
is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a
crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.
B. Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general
population.
C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than
other inmates to commit crimes after being released.
D. Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior
than taking college-level courses does.
E. The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something
effective is being done about crime.

Hi EGMAT,

My analysis, conclusion of the argument is "this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal". keeping this understanding , i can eliminate option B,D&E.

now in option A.

A. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a
crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

This is a new information and negation of this sentence would be

Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is likely to deter anyone from a
crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

So that actually says govt goal can be achieve and shatters the author conclusion.

Now for Option C

C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than
other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

Negating this argument says

C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely than
other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

In argument it is given that inmates are already commited fever crime. the only difference in the option C , while negating it says that they will less likely to commit crimes after being released.

i thought option C is just re-statement with only difference after being released.

So I'm confused ,please clear my understanding.

Thanks

egmat · Answer

Hi Nitin, First of all, thanks for sharing your analysis. I truly appreciate that you put in the required efforts before asking a questions

I see that your negation of option A is not entirely correct and this may be contributing to the confusion. What do you think is the negation of the below statement? He is unlikely to kill anyone. Which of the following 2 is the negation? 1. He is likely to call anyone 2. He is likely to kill someone. I look forward to your response on this. Now, coming to option C. The argument says that people who take course commit fewer crimes. Right? On the basis of this, the argument concludes that the governor's plan will be counterproductive. So, what is the most fundamental assumption underlying? The most fundamental assumption is that the courses are somewhat responsible for the fewer crimes. (Please note the difference between this assumption and the statement given in the passage. The statement in the passage is about correlation i.e. two things (course and fewer crimes) co-exist. This assumption is about causality i.e courses are responsible for fewer crimes. You are missing this difference in your analysis). Now, if we somehow prove that the courses are not responsible for fewer crimes, both the above assumption and the conclusion will fall apart. Right? This is what option C does. Its negation says that people who chose the courses were in any case likely to commit fewer crimes. So, this means that the courses didn't lead to fewer crimes; such people were in any case going to commit fewer crimes. Since the negation of option C topples the conclusion, option C is a correct assumption. Does it help? Feel free to ask in case of any further queries

Thanks, Chiranjeev

Nitinaka19 · Answer

Hi Chiranjeev, Thanks for the clarification,Still there are certain queries i need to clarify, As you mention its a causative statement, which i really found very useful and really make this analysis a bit easy to understand.

So going with this understanding , Criminal who took courses leads to fewer crime. Now in option A states after negating , Criminal not taking course will leads to no fewer crime and this means its not a valid assumption. (No X no Y structure is not a valid assumption) But in Option C your negated statement says " people who chose the courses were in any case likely to commit fewer crimes." whereas mine negated statement is "The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released." howcome "were already less likely than other inmates " leads to "any case likely to ? what i assume is less likely than other inmates is just a part of modifier which can be neglected while negating. Please correct my understading where i'm wrong? and answering to your questions. He is unlikely to kill anyone negated statement would be He is likely to kill anyone or can we say He is unlikely to kill no one ? i'm having doubt on the latter statement? Thanks

DeepikaV · Answer

hi,  sayantanc2k

i always go wrong when CR is involved with complex sentences like A and C with double negatives. i have hard time understanding them. please help me how to approach them. Thank you

sayantanc2k · Answer

You may try rephrasing into a positive sentence. For example you may try reading option A as:

Not   B eing able to take college-level courses while in prison is  un likely to deter  anyone   some  from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

(Make sure to change  any  and  some  correctly.)

Negative of "unlikely to deter anyone" = "likely to deter some"

BUT there may be a major issue in some cases:

Not taking the medicine will not heal you.
The above does not imply:
Taking the medicine will heal you.

Unfortunately the same issue arises in option A as well. The rephrased option A is NOT the same as the original option A - but at least rephrasing would give you an idea about "for or against" kind of situation. Option A and rephrased option A takes ( supports or opposes) one particular side of the argument. This linking may sometimes help wrap the brain around double negatives.

santorasantu · Answer

Negating statement C i.e. 
The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were  already  less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released. This makes the conclusion that these inmates commit crimes after being released invalid. The reason is that these inmates are already less likely to commit crimes.

So, C it is.

Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released from prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

(B) Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.

(C) The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

(D) Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.

(E) The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released from prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

(B) Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.

(C) The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

(D) Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.

(E) The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.

The argument presents the following premises:

To reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and is making prison conditions harsher
Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses.

Conclusion

This action goes against the governor’s ultimate goal. Why? The inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.

We need to find the assumption on which the argument depends. (An option that strengthens the conclusion)

A- Option A goes against the conclusion of the argument. The argument says that inmates who had taken college-level courses committed fewer crimes compared to other inmates who had not taken college-level courses. Option A negates the conclusion saying it’s not the case. Hence we eliminate option A.

B- The comparison here is between former inmates and the members of the general population. This is an irrelevant comparison.

C) The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

If the group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released, then the reason for them to not commit crimes after being released is that they took college-level courses. This strengthens our conclusion and is our answer.

D) Here, the comparison is between taking high school level courses and college-level courses and not the probability of committing crimes with/without taking college-level courses.

E) Option E can be clearly eliminated as it says that the intention of the governor was to gain popularity. This is not relevant to the argument at all.

Vishnupriya
CrackVerbal Prep Team

Jaya6 · Answer

can someone highlight the conclusion and the premise here as we have contrasting premises and how do we assume without negating the statement?

I thought that the conclusion was to get tough on crimnals and make prison conditions harsher.

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  Jaya6 . Most of the time, the conclusion can be found at the end of the passage, particularly in assumption questions. (Boldface questions are another story.) Looking at this passage, we can see a judgmental turn of phrase in the last sentence when everything prior has been more informative—that is, earlier in the passage, we have been  told  by a third party what the governor aims to do. The turn of phrase I refer to is  this action is  clearly  counter to the governor’s ultimate goal , and it is the argument within the editorial. (Who says the action is  clearly  misguided? That is more opinion than fact.) Meanwhile,  since  is a premise marker, used to justify an argument or conclusion. In other words, the argument says that  because   inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates   , the governor's efforts are counterproductive to his or her own goal. So, how do we tease out the necessary assumption?

Many students, tutors, and teachers of the test prefer the negation technique on such questions, and for this type of analysis, I would urge you to read more of the thread above. I, however, prefer to tackle the answers directly, seeking a missing link between premise and conclusion in the following manner:

1) Premise— inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates

2) Assumption—?

3) Conclusion— this action   is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal

Choices (A) and (C) are the only two viable options, and of the two, (C) directly leads to the conclusion, while (A) runs contrary to it. (If (A) were true, why would the author of the editorial arrive at a seemingly opposite conclusion?) Since others have discussed these two answers more in depth above, I will again refer you to earlier posts. I was simply hoping in this post to help you identify how an argument is constructed. Typically, it will consist of background information that leads into premises, which in turn build up to an argument or conclusion.

I hope that helps. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

Jaya6 · Answer

Thank you Andrew, that was quite useful.
can I reach out to you for any questions that I have? if yes, then how?

AndrewN · Answer

Of course you can,  Jaya6 . All you have to do is request an Expert reply and write my name, tag me using the mention button, or PM me with questions. I am part of this community in an effort to steer people toward sounder GMAT™ reasoning, and I am pretty good about responding when called upon.

- Andrew

devansh18 · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja

While I was able to understand correct option C, I could not reject Option A on solid ground(s)

My current understanding is as follows:-
Conclusion - inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes than those who did not
Option A states that not taking college level courses does not deter criminals from committing any crime. Thus, in some way, it supports our conclusion

When negated, option A states - not taking courses is likely to deter criminals from committing crimes. Hence this negation very much contradicts and seriously weakens the editorial's conclusion. So why can't this choice be a valid assumption

Thanks, Devansh

Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards