GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 22 May 2019, 01:56

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 20 Feb 2014
Posts: 6
Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2014, 07:03
atomy wrote:
13. In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws was 645 crimes per 100,000 persons—about 50 percent higher than the average rate in the eleven states where strict gun-control laws have never been passed. Thus one way to reduce violent crime is to repeal strict gun control laws.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
(A) The annual rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws has decreased since the passage of those laws.
(B) In states with strict gun-control laws, few individuals are prosecuted for violating such laws.
(C) In states without strict gun-control laws, many individuals have had no formal training in the use of firearms.
(D) The annual rate of nonviolent crime is lower in states with strict gun-control laws than in states without such laws.
(E) Less than half of the individuals who reside in states without strict gun-control laws own a gun.

my reasoning not to select E is that if a person owns a gun, it doesn't mean that he/she may comit a crime..
please correct me if i am wrong..By the way, i narrowed down to A and E and then i applied the above reasoning to select A as the answer..

Okay here goes my explanantion:

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
(A) The annual rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws has decreased since the passage of those laws.
This options directlty shows the flaw in the premise-conclusion relationship. This option says, that, you know what, it might take several years for a strict rule to show its effects, and now the effects are visible, the violent crimes have reduced, and now that the crimes are curbed, repealing the laws would hurt the success.CORRECT
(B) In states with strict gun-control laws, few individuals are prosecuted for violating such laws.
What happens to people after they are caught, none of this argument's business
(C) In states without strict gun-control laws, many individuals have had no formal training in the use of firearms.
well, i think this could have a bit misleading too, because trained or not trained does not stop you from just pulling the trigger. If you are not trained and shooting people, doesnt mean you are committing violent crimes? rite?
(D) The annual rate of nonviolent crime is lower in states with strict gun-control laws than in states without such laws.
Talking about on-violent crimes, does this conclusion care about non-violent crimes? NOPE.
(E) Less than half of the individuals who reside in states without strict gun-control laws own a gun.
Owning a gun is not nesscarily related to number of crimes committed. Extremely violent people but less number can commit as many crimes as lots of not-so-voilent people with guns. So, this option doesnt really tell us anything related to the conclusion.

The main aim should be to stick to the conclusion really. If you really understand what the conclusion is, its simple to rule out so many options just on the basis of scope.
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 433
Concentration: Technology, Other
Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2014, 08:27
My 2 cents on this though folks have already answered this in earlier posts.

Conclusion:
One way to reduce violent crime is to repeal strict gun control laws.
Why?
the average rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws was 645 crimes per 100,000 persons—about 50 percent higher than the average rate in the eleven states where strict gun-control laws have never been passed.

Based upon the VC rate its concluded that law is ineffective. One of the assumption here could be that the rate hasn't been higher in past.
Option A hits the nail on the head by negating that assumption.
(A) The annual rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws has decreased since the passage of those laws.
SVP
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1877
Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2016, 01:32
PUNEETSCHDV wrote:
In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws was 645 crimes per 100,000 persons—about 50 percent higher than the average rate in the eleven states where strict gun-control laws have never been passed. Thus one way to reduce violent crime is to repeal strict gun control laws.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

(A) The annual rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws has decreased since the passage of those laws.
(B) In states with strict gun-control laws, few individuals are prosecuted for violating such laws.
(C) In states without strict gun-control laws, many individuals have had no formal training in the use of firearms.
(D) The annual rate of nonviolent crime is lower in states with strict gun-control laws than in states without such laws.
(E) Less than half of the individuals who reside in states without strict gun-control laws own a gun.

Premise: Violent crime rate is higher in states with gun control law
Conclusion: We should repeal the law to reduce the crime
We need to weaken this conclusion.

What if the rates of the states with the law were already higher from the others. In this case we cannot base our judgement on just the rate.
Option A talks on the same lines by saying that the rate of violent crime has reduced in the states with the law. So, if we reduce the law, the rates might go up again.
This weakens our conclusion.

Correct Option: A
Retired Moderator
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 269
Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2017, 09:20
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________
VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1010
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2017, 02:56
Imo A

It tells that the states which implemented the law were able to reduce violent crimes hence the law was successful in reducing the violent crimes .
_________________
Manager
Status: Final Call! Will Achieve Target ANyHow This Tym! :)
Joined: 05 Jan 2016
Posts: 81
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V25
GPA: 3.8
In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Aug 2017, 04:01
In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws was 645 crimes per 100,000 persons—about 50 percent higher than the average rate in the eleven states where strict gun-control laws have never been passed. Thus one way to reduce violent crime is to repeal strict gun control laws.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

The argument assumes that it is because of their strict gun-control laws that states with such laws have a high rate of violent crime. If that were so, passage of these laws should be associated with increased violent crime. That is there is a CORRELATION between the passage of these laws AND violent crimes.

(A) The annual rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws has decreased since the passage of those laws.
It indicates that the opposite is true and so weakens the argument.

Also, if we notice more carefully, the argument is talking about the relative average rate of violent crimes for states with and without laws. But option A is talking about the overall annual rate that too for the states with the law and it says that the annual rate of violent crimes has decreased, thus we don't need to repeal strict gun control laws. Thus, Correct ANswer.

(B) In states with strict gun-control laws, few individuals are prosecuted for violating such laws.
The infrequency of prosecutions under strict gun-control laws does not indicate that these laws have no effect on violent crime.

What if many individuals were prosecuted for violating such laws, In states with strict gun-control laws :?: does that weakens the CORRELATION between the passage of these laws AND violent crimes. No, right. Even then also there can be more crimes.

For choice C and E to be relevant more information is needed, such as comparative data about states with strict gun-control laws.

(C) In states without strict gun-control laws, many individuals have had no formal training in the use of firearms.
so what?? what about the states with strict gun-control laws??

(D) The annual rate of nonviolent crime is lower in states with strict gun-control laws than in states without such laws.
non-violent crimes, we are not concerned..

(E) Less than half of the individuals who reside in states without strict gun-control laws own a gun.
so what?? what about the states with strict gun-control laws??
_________________
Regards,
Varun

Trying my best..... will succeed definitely! :)

The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long.
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful. :)

Do Check OG 2017 SC Solutions - http://gmatwithcj.com/solutions-gmat-official-guide-2017-sentence-correction-questions/
Intern
Joined: 03 Aug 2018
Posts: 5
Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Nov 2018, 05:14
walker wrote:
In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws was 645 crimes per 100,000 persons: about 50 percent higher than the average rate in the eleven states where strict gun-control laws have never been passed. Thus one way to reduce violent crime is to repeal strict gun control laws.

- Premise: Avg crime rates with strict gun control is 50%> Avg crime rates without strict gun control

- conclusion: To reduced violent crime, Repeal Strict Gun Control Laws.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

(A) The annual rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws has decreased since the passage of those laws.
- irrelevant

(B) In states with strict gun-control laws, few individuals are prosecuted for violating such laws.
- incorrect

(C) In states without strict gun-control laws, many individuals have had no formal training in the use of firearms.
- irrelevant

(D) The annual rate of nonviolent crime is lower in states with strict gun-control laws than in states without such laws.

- incorrect

(E) Less than half of the individuals who reside in states without strict gun-control laws own a gun.

- weaken

Posted from my mobile device
Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent   [#permalink] 29 Nov 2018, 05:14

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 27 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by