In each of the past five years, Barraland's prison population has increased. Yet, according to official government statistics, for none of those years has there been either an increase in the number of criminal cases brought to trial, or an increase in the rate at which convictions have been obtained. Clearly, therefore, the percentage of people convicted of crimes who are being given prison sentences is on the increase.
Barraland's prison population in start of year 1 of the five year period => P1
Barraland's prison population at the end of year 1 of the five year period > P1
Barraland's prison population in the following years > Barraland's prison population in each year earlier.
Records show no increase in the no. of criminal cases brought to trial + increase in the rate at which convictions have been obtained ( both of which could be the most probable explanation for the increase, but both of which is not the case here) - So what could have caused the increase?
We could think about the present prisoners there. Why? Because we know that in the prison system, the input (in terms of number of prisoners) is held constant, while the output is a greater number.
The author concludes that, '% of people convicted of crimes & given sentences is on the increase'. To weaken this, we only need to find out an answer choice that proposes an alternative explanation for the increase. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) In Barraland the range of punishments that can be imposed instead of a prison sentence is wide - Oh! So a person could be thrown off the cliff. But that would not contribute to the increase in the population of prisoners at Barraland - Reject
(B) Over the last ten years, overcrowding in the prisons of Barraland has essentially been eliminated as a result of an ambitious program of prison construction. - Population increase does not necessarily lead to overcrowding. Even if it did, that still doesn't explain what could have lead to the population increase in the first place- Reject
(C) Ten years ago, Barraland reformed its criminal justice system, imposing longer minimum sentences for those crimes for which a prison sentence had long been mandatory - This does provide an alternate explanation for the increase. Prisoners are serving longer sentences. The input of prisoners who are brought to trial is constant as stated in the premise. Keep it!
(D) Barraland has been supervising convicts on parole more closely in recent years, with the result that parole violations have become significantly less frequent - So, initially parole violations were more. The prisoners on parole are the same prisoners who were sentenced to prison earlier. Even if these prisoners commit a violation while on parole, they probably could be sentenced to a lengthier term or even be given some harsh punishments (we cannot be sure of this). Hence reject.
(E) The number of people in Barraland who feel that crime is on the increase is significantly greater now than it was five years ago - What the public feels about the crime has nothing to do with the increase in the prison population, at least in the context of the argument!
[/quote]
_________________
Correct me if I am wrong, guide me if I am right!