In the country of Lumaria, there is a proposal to implement a new poli

Question

In the country of Lumaria, there is a proposal to implement a new policy that mandates a minimum number of police officers per capita in all cities and towns. The aim is to enhance public safety and reduce crime rates. However, opponents argue that during times of economic downturn, the cost of hiring and maintaining additional police officers may be burdensome for local governments. They claim that implementing this policy would lead to financial strain and could even result in the reduction of other essential public services.

Which of the following would be most important to determine in order to evaluate the argument?

A. Whether there are alternative methods or strategies to enhance public safety and reduce crime rates other than increasing the number of police officers per capita.
B. Whether the crime rates tend to increase during economic downturns in Lumaria.
C. What the current ratio of police officers to the population is in cities and towns of Lumaria.
D. What proportion of the local government budget is allocated to public services other than law enforcement.
E. Whether any cities or towns in Lumaria have previously implemented a similar policy and experienced negative financial consequences.

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

Screenshot 2025-09-12 12.34.41 PM.png [ 126.02 KiB | Viewed 754 times ]

Show Answer

Official Answer

D

VivekSri · Answer

OA is D

Based on the scenario, the most important factor to determine to evaluate the argument is  D. What proportion of the local government budget is allocated to public services other than law enforcement .
The core of the argument against the policy is the claim that it will cause  financial strain  and lead to the  reduction of other essential public services . To properly evaluate this claim, you need to know how much money is currently available for those other services. If a large portion of the budget is already dedicated to things like education, healthcare, and infrastructure, then a significant increase in law enforcement spending would be much more likely to require cuts to those areas. Without this information, you can't assess the validity of the opponents' main concern.

Here's why A is not the best answer and a quick example to illustrate the difference:
 Why not A? 
 
  A. Whether there are alternative methods or strategies to enhance public safety and reduce crime rates other than increasing the number of police officers per capita.   
This option is about a  different  argument. The debate is not whether the policy is the  only  way to improve public safety. The debate is specifically about the  negative consequences  of this particular policy—the financial burden and the potential for cutting other services. While alternative methods are relevant to the overall goal of public safety, they don't directly help you evaluate the  opponents' specific argument  about financial strain. The argument isn't "this policy is bad because there are other options." The argument is "this policy is bad because it will drain our budget and we'll have to cut other services."
 Example: 
Imagine a family is debating whether to buy a new, expensive car.
 
  The Family's Argument:  "We can't afford this car right now; we'd have to cancel our vacation to pay for it." 
  A-type Response:  "Should we consider taking the bus instead of buying a car?" (This is about an alternative transportation method, but doesn't directly address whether they can afford the car or if the vacation would be canceled). 
  D-type Response:  "How much money do we have saved up for the vacation?" (This directly evaluates the claim that they would have to sacrifice the vacation for the car).  
The D-type response is most important because it directly addresses the central claim of the argument.
Based on the scenario, the most important factor to determine to evaluate the argument is  D. What proportion of the local government budget is allocated to public services other than law enforcement .
The core of the argument against the policy is the claim that it will cause  financial strain  and lead to the  reduction of other essential public services . To properly evaluate this claim, you need to know how much money is currently available for those other services. If a large portion of the budget is already dedicated to things like education, healthcare, and infrastructure, then a significant increase in law enforcement spending would be much more likely to require cuts to those areas. Without this information, you can't assess the validity of the opponents' main concern.

Here's why A is not the best answer and a quick example to illustrate the difference:
 Why not A? 
 
  A. Whether there are alternative methods or strategies to enhance public safety and reduce crime rates other than increasing the number of police officers per capita.   
This option is about a  different  argument. The debate is not whether the policy is the  only  way to improve public safety. The debate is specifically about the  negative consequences  of this particular policy—the financial burden and the potential for cutting other services. While alternative methods are relevant to the overall goal of public safety, they don't directly help you evaluate the  opponents' specific argument  about financial strain. The argument isn't "this policy is bad because there are other options." The argument is "this policy is bad because it will drain our budget and we'll have to cut other services."
 Example: 
Imagine a family is debating whether to buy a new, expensive car.
 
  The Family's Argument:  "We can't afford this car right now; we'd have to cancel our vacation to pay for it." 
  A-type Response:  "Should we consider taking the bus instead of buying a car?" (This is about an alternative transportation method, but doesn't directly address whether they can afford the car or if the vacation would be canceled). 
  D-type Response:  "How much money do we have saved up for the vacation?" (This directly evaluates the claim that they would have to sacrifice the vacation for the car).  
The D-type response is most important because it directly addresses the central claim of the argument.

kitkat4620 · Answer

I don’t think D is the correct option. It is telling what proportion of total amount does public services constitute. But we are more interested in if in the amount given to public services, whether implementing this policy would reduce the budget for other public service activities. 
Imo C looks better because 
If the ratio is more -> the plan will not reduce the budget 
If the ratio is less -> the plan will reduce the budget.

Rashie1 · Answer

Answer: D
The opponents’ concern is that hiring more police will force cuts to other essential services. To evaluate this, we need to know what share of the budget is already allocated to those services. If it’s large, the concern is valid; if small, less so.

mkeshri185 · Answer

I have one doubt that what can we get by knowing 'what's the current portion allocated to other dept'? If it is 80% allocated to other and 20% to law enforcement then increasing the budget of law will decrease the portion of other so the other things may suffer.....

thereule · Answer

How can we decide what's small or large? As every country might have different needs, in some country they may have to invest more in education in other more in defence as no other context is given about the county in the question. In my opinion I dont think you can necessarily know what is small or large. And also let's say for instance we know exact percentages are known, it still wouldn't help us.

terminatork07 · Answer

IMO, the background of the opponents claim relies on - " during times of economic downturn...". The mandate is being evaluated in the case of the economic downturn where the cost of hiring and maintaining additional police officers may be burdensome for local governments (This is actually the premise). So when you look at C, and think hmmm "What if the ratio of police/population is enough"? WAIT AND LOOK AT THE PREMISE.

GMAT RULE- Never reason against the boundaries of the premise premise.

In the country of Lumaria, there is a proposal to implement a new poli

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

In the country of Lumaria, there is a proposal to implement a new poli

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