It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 02:56

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3584

Kudos [?]: 4575 [0], given: 360

Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2008, 13:07
Expert's post
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

65% (01:35) correct 35% (01:57) wrong based on 589 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

HOT! GMAT TOOLKIT 2 (iOS) / GMAT TOOLKIT (Android) - The OFFICIAL GMAT CLUB PREP APP, a must-have app especially if you aim at 700+ | PrepGame

Kudos [?]: 4575 [0], given: 360

Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
Posts: 130

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2008, 14:39
The conclusion is that gun laws had no effect in lowering violent crimes.
The premise is states with gun laws have higher rate of crime than state without gun laws.

So the assumption is that by imposing gun laws, these states would lower its violent crimes.

The answer that most weakens the argument is that gun laws have indeed lowered violent crimes, and those states with low rates of crime have always had low rates. Furthermore gun laws would benefit those 11 states as well.

So (A)

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2472

Kudos [?]: 841 [0], given: 19

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2008, 14:40
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.

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.

A. the law has been effective in lowing or controlling the crimes in those states that mplemented the law.
_________________

Gmat: http://gmatclub.com/forum/everything-you-need-to-prepare-for-the-gmat-revised-77983.html

GT

Kudos [?]: 841 [0], given: 19

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 459

Kudos [?]: 218 [1], given: 4

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2008, 17:18
1
KUDOS
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.

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.strengthens the argument. ELIMINATE.
(C) In states without strict gun-control laws, many individuals have had no formal training in the use of firearms. no relation of crime with formal training. ELIMINATE.
(D) The annual rate of nonviolent crime is lower in states with strict gun-control laws than in states without such laws. we are talking about violent crime, not non-violent crime.ELIMINATE.
(E) Less than half of the individuals who reside in states without strict gun-control laws own a gun. but then what is the number for states with strict gun laws? ELIMINATE

Think its A.

_________________

-Underline your question. It takes only a few seconds!
-Search before you post.

Kudos [?]: 218 [1], given: 4

SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1886

Kudos [?]: 1395 [0], given: 1

Schools: CBS, Kellogg

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2008, 19:03
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.

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.

A, too

The conclusion denies the role of the laws, so A confirms the role of the laws, A weakens the conclusion
_________________

Kudos [?]: 1395 [0], given: 1

CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3584

Kudos [?]: 4575 [0], given: 360

Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2008, 21:59
OA is A

Thanks for explanation!
vscid, +1
_________________

HOT! GMAT TOOLKIT 2 (iOS) / GMAT TOOLKIT (Android) - The OFFICIAL GMAT CLUB PREP APP, a must-have app especially if you aim at 700+ | PrepGame

Kudos [?]: 4575 [0], given: 360

Intern
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 47

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 0

Location: India

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2008, 01:41
My vote goes to A only.

Why?
B: No reason why prosecution would be deterrent.
C: formal training has nothing to do with people using guns.
D: Crime - violent or non-violent has nothing to do with gun-control.
E: Again the number of people are not really important.

Hence A. By elimination.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 91

Kudos [?]: 19 [2], given: 2

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

### Show Tags

22 May 2009, 06:13
2
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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..

Last edited by carcass on 24 Jan 2017, 11:34, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 19 [2], given: 2

SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1886

Kudos [?]: 1395 [0], given: 1

Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 May 2009, 06:41
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..

I think, in order to weaken the argument, you should show that the STRICT or UNSTRICT gun-control laws are not a factor to reduce the crime rate. E does say that relationship, that is, E shows that like strict...states, the unstrict states do have the same gun owned by the citizens, so E weakens the argument
_________________

Kudos [?]: 1395 [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 248

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 1

Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 May 2009, 07:40
This is a very tricky question, although it's a classical type of weakening.

I think B

Once again, classical weaken type question: cause --> effect. So, if it requires weaken, we should show that even when cause occurs, effect won't occur

cause: repeal strict gun laws
effect: reduce violent crimes

In B: In states with strict gun laws, few people will likely to violate such laws --> it means that because now few people violate the laws, the high rates of violent crime is not caused by adopting such laws --> so even when such laws is repealed, such action has no effect in reducing violent crimes -->weaken

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 --> if it is, it does not weaken the argument, because it's not in the scope mentioned in the argument
(C) In states without strict gun-control laws, many individuals have had no formal training in the use of firearms --> no influence
(D) The annual rate of nonviolent crime is lower in states with strict gun-control laws than in states without such laws --> irrelevant
(E) Less than half of the individuals who reside in states without strict gun-control laws own a gun -->strengthen

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 263

Kudos [?]: 342 [0], given: 2

Location: nj
Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 May 2009, 09:55
I choose E.

my reason to choose E is that it directly attacks the reason for more violent crimes in the conclusion. The reason is "not to have a gun control law"

A states some reasoning for the states , which have "gun control laws"

A ---> less impact - if "having gun control law" decreases the crime in some other state then we should also not repeal gun control law

E ---> more impact - if "not having a gun control" law increases the crime in some other state then why to repeal the gcl.

Kudos [?]: 342 [0], given: 2

Manager
Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 91

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 2

Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 May 2009, 11:14
Guys, OA is A. I asked this question so as to confirm that i've used the correct reasoning..

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 2

Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 248

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 1

Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 May 2009, 16:52
atomy wrote:
Guys, OA is A. I asked this question so as to confirm that i've used the correct reasoning..

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 1

SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1886

Kudos [?]: 1395 [0], given: 1

Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 May 2009, 19:52
atomy wrote:
Guys, OA is A. I asked this question so as to confirm that i've used the correct reasoning..

atomy wrote:
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..

A says that repealing the strict gun control laws is not nesscessary to reduce the crime rate. In the states with strict gun -control laws, The annual rate of violent crime has decreased since the passage of those laws
_________________

Kudos [?]: 1395 [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 91

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 2

Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 May 2009, 06:30
this question is from 1000 cr gmat section...

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 2

Manager
Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Posts: 63

Kudos [?]: 119 [1], given: 37

Location: Korea, Republic of
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT Date: 08-16-2012
GPA: 3.05
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2012, 18:20
1
KUDOS
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.

Conclusion

To reduce violent crime is to repeal the gun laws.

Premise
the crime rate in the state /w the laws > the crime rate in the state /wo the laws

To weaken the conclusion, there muse be the other main reason to have the state /w the laws higher crime rate.

A weakens the argument by saying that the crime rate in the state /w the laws were already high and decreased since the passage of the law.

I initially thought about C because

the people in the state /wo the laws had no formal training -> the reason why the crime rate is low?
However, to validate that logical predication, I need to assume that the people in the state /w the laws already had been trained to use the gun.
Because I can't find the proof of that assumption, C can't be the answer.
_________________

Luck is the additional surplus on the way to one's constant effort.

Kudos [?]: 119 [1], given: 37

Director
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 536

Kudos [?]: 353 [0], given: 75

Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jul 2012, 00:14
(A) The annual rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws has decreased since the passage of those laws.

The rate was even more before the law was in practice.

So, IMO too (A)
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

Kudos [?]: 353 [0], given: 75

Manager
Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 224

Kudos [?]: 254 [1], given: 56

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

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2012, 00:16
1
KUDOS
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.
_________________

If you found my contribution helpful, please click the +1 Kudos button on the left, I kinda need some =)

Kudos [?]: 254 [1], given: 56

Director
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 536

Kudos [?]: 353 [0], given: 75

Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2012, 04:03
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.

We need an AC which can tell us that the strict gun control is effective even though the statistics are not that great as of now.

(A) wins

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.
Rate of violent crimes is reducing-correct
(B) In states with strict gun-control laws, few individuals are prosecuted for violating such laws.
prosecuted or not is not under consideration-incorrect
(C) In states without strict gun-control laws, many individuals have had no formal training in the use of firearms.
violent crime may or may not require training-incorrect
(D) The annual rate of nonviolent crime is lower in states with strict gun-control laws than in states without such law
non violent crime is out of scope-incorrect
(E) Less than half of the individuals who reside in states without strict gun-control laws own a gun.
doesn't mean that they commit crimes as well- incorrect
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

Kudos [?]: 353 [0], given: 75

Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 189

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 349

Concentration: General Management, Operations
Schools: HBS '19 (S)
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jan 2013, 04:29
I chose E ... since the criteria for comparing both the situations should be the same ... i.e. both should containd same number of people owning guns

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 349

Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent   [#permalink] 14 Jan 2013, 04:29

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 30 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by