PREMISE 1. In each of the past five years, Barraland’s prison population has increased.
PREMISE 2. None of those years has there been either anincrease in the number of criminal cases brought to trial, or an increase in the rate at which convictions have been obtained.

CONCLUSION- Clearly, therefore, the percentage of people convicted of crimes who are being given prison sentences is on the increase.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

WE HAVE TO FIND A REASON HOW-
1. NO INCREASE IN NUMBER OF CRIMINAL CASES...SAY IT CONTINUES TO BE 100 AS BEFORE.....
2. NO INCREASE IN RATE OF CONVICTION..... SAY 10%....10 ARE CONVICTED AS BEFORE.....
3. NO INCREASE IN NUMBER OF THOSE CONVICTED GIVEN PRISON SENTENCE... SAY OUT OF 10 CONVICTED 20% ... THAT IS TWO GIVEN PRISON SENTENCE...

THAT IS HOW EVERY YEAR ONLY TWO NEW CONVICTS GO TO JAIL YET JAIL STRENGTH INCREASES........ONLY POSSIBLE IN CASE OF "C".....CORRECT ANSWER

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.

A,B,D AND E IRRELEVANT...


KUDOS IF YOU PLEASE......

This is a good weaken question:
C1: In each of the past five years, Barraland's prison population has increased.
P1: 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
Conclusion: the percentage of people convicted of crimes who are being given prison sentences is on the increase.

We need to find the statement what will weaken the conclusion which claims that % of people convicted of crimes is on increase.

Lets look at the answer choices:

A. In Barraland the range of punishments that can be imposed instead of a prison sentence is wide.
This does not directly deal with or tell us why the % of people convicted of crimes is on the rise. It deals with prisons, but does not directly deal with the conclusion. So not it.

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.
Out of scope. Overcrowding is not mentioned in the passage and does not deal with the conclusion

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.
Now this is a good choice which claims that something that started 10 years ago is a result for more attendance in prison. It clearly states that the % of people in prison is increasing, not because of people convicted of crimes, but because of something (imposing longer minimum sentence for those crimes for which a prison sentence had long been mandatory) that started 10 years ago. This weakens the conclusion and is the correct answer!

D. Barraland has been supervising convicts on parole more closely in recent years, with the result that parole violations have become significantly less frequent.
Parole deals with people already out of prison and is out of scope, Not it

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.
It does not matter how many people 'feel' that crime is on the increase. Does not relate to our conclusion. Too broad to be the correct answer.

Correct answer: C

Hope this helps!

I liked your elimination, however I feel that the reason for eliminating is not because it is out of scope but because it is a strengthener. It is giving you a reason that people who are on parole are not likely to come back, and hence crowding in the prison could be because of the percentage of people getting convicted is on increase.
And.. remember Answer choices in Weaken and Strengthen questions are likely to be Out of Scope.

Target to weaken (conclusion): Clearly, therefore, the percentage of people convicted of crimes who are being given prison sentences is on the increase.

--

A- In Barraland the range of punishments that can be imposed instead of a prison sentence is wide. Irrelevant, still doesn't explain the reason behind the increase, thus incorrect.
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. Irrelevant
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. It essentially implies that there are more people in prison since the implementation of the reform, which explains the increase over time, correct.
D- Barraland has been supervising convicts on parole more closely in recent years, with the result that parole violations have become significantly less frequent. Irrelevant
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. Irrelevant

--

Thanks for sharing.

Premise: Prison person increased, Criminal cases not increased, Convictions not increased.
Conclusion: So, Prisoners/convicts must have increased.

If I prove that prisoners increased not because of convicts but because of something else, then that would weaken the conclusion.

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.

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.
If range is high, then why prisoners increased?
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.
Even if a program has been eliminated, its relation with the convict-prisoner hasn't been mentioned.
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.
Bingo ! Prisoners are living longer than they used to before.
D. Barraland has been supervising convicts on parole more closely in recent years, with the result that parole violations have become significantly less frequent.
Violations less frequent-> low number of convicts-> then why prisoner population increased?
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.
Irrelevant.

I think this can be solve by looking at the assumption = A.
Conclusion = B.
A causes B.
Lets the stats be the way it is.
A= Clearly, therefore, the percentage of people convicted of crimes who are being given prison sentences is on the increase
B = Barraland’s prison population has increased

Can I find another cause for the increase in population (B) ?

C- since not much people are leaving so population increased
D- Less violation, less population in jail - so this option is out

Conclusion : Clearly, therefore, the percentage of people convicted of crimes who are being given prison sentences is on the increase.



Answer : (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.
_________________

I got confused because of word "Longer minimum sentences "
_________________

It means the minimum time at prison has made longer
For example:
5 years ago,prisoner has to stay at prison for at least 1 years
Now, prisoner has to stay at prison for at least 2 years

That's why:
the number of existing prisoners increases +
the number of new prisoners remains 0
---------------------------------------------------
Total prisoner population increases +

Hope that it helps

This question is from GMAT exam pack 1

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.

Argument Construction



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.

Does not weaken the conclusion and eventually does not give any reason

(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.

Strengthens the argument

(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.

Correctly give reason as why the no of prisoners are increasing

(D) Barraland has been supervising convicts on parole more closely in recent years, with the result that parole violations have become significantly less frequent.

Does not give any reason as why No of prisoners are increasing

(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

Who cares ?

Hi LoneSurvivor,

The argument does not make sentence. Can you please explain to me how the author arrived to the conclusion? The argument mentions that no crime cases brought to trial increased nor conviction rate. If this is the case, the prison sentences should not increase because if someone commits a crime then he or she will face a prison sentence.

Thank you,
Yazed

Hi,
I did get the correct answer through the POE but I am unable to understand what the option meant.

Kindly help!

Hi Shami

The stimulus can be broken down in this fashion:

Premises:
i) Barraland's prison population has increased in each of the past five years.
ii) There has been no increase in number of criminal cases.
ii) There has been no increase in conviction rate.

Conclusion: Proportion of convicts being given prison sentences is increasing.

(ii) & (iii) together mean that number of people being sent to prison has remained constant. Since (i) states prison occupation is increasing, it can only be because number of prisoners being released has been reducing.

Option (C) states that, for the same crime, the length of prison sentences being given was increased abruptly ten years ago. This would explain why fewer prisoners are being released from prison - because of the longer sentences, they would not yet have completed their term. This provides an alternative explanation for (i) and hence weakens the conclusion.

Hope this helps.
_________________

CrackVerbalGMAT I rejected B as the question stem states that Last 5 years this this and that happened so whatever should weaken must be an answer choice telling something that took place 5 years before. Is option B perfectly okay? Can you help me understand why the stem stated 5 years but the answer stated 10 years

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]
_________________

Hi Deeptanshu

Option (B) is frankly irrelevant to the point being made in the stimulus. The stimulus talks about "Barraland's prison population", ie; total number of people in prisons in Barraland. Option (B), on the other hand, talks about "overcrowding in the prisons of Barraland" ie; number of prisoners per prison (or, to be more specific, number of people in prisons relative to their capacity) in Barraland. Hence option (B) does not impact our conclusion in any manner.

Option (C), the correct answer, states that 10 years ago, longer prison sentences started being imposed. Now, if we start imposing longer prison sentences today (for crimes which have prison sentences), prison population would not increase today itself but at some point in future, when prisoners sentenced today would have started getting released under the earlier model but are still in prison due to the longer prison sentences imposed today. This lag, presumably, is five years in Barraland!

Hope this clarifies.
_________________

Hi Experts,

I was able to solve this question as, except for option C, all other options were losers. But is option C a correct weakener used to explain the increase in prisoner populations of the last 5 years using a ten years old reform?