It is currently 17 Nov 2017, 20:25

### 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

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2004
Posts: 119

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2005, 17:00
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 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 personsâ€”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.

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 894

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2005, 17:50
A

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1706

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - Gun Control Law [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2005, 18:21
A is best.

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2004
Posts: 119

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - Gun Control Law [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2005, 18:45
OA is A. Could you please explain why B is wrong? If Gun control is not strictly enforced the problem is not with the gun control law but rather with the enforcement of it. So we should not do away with the law instead enforce is better.
thanks

damit 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 personsâ€”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.

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 372

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

Location: India

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2005, 18:58
B supports the argument in saying that when no person in prosecuted there is no point having gun control laws.

Hence A - although the rate of crime is more that other non-control states it has reduced the incidence of crime.

HMTG..

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Posts: 349

Kudos [?]: 150 [0], given: 1

Location: USA

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2005, 10:37
The answer is Clearly A.

Damit, B states - "In states with strict gun-control laws, few individuals are prosecuted for violating such laws.", which means that many violators of the strict gun laws go scot free, which in turn strengthens the author's conclusion. The argument requires an answer choice that weakens the conclusion.

A states that the law has helped bring down the crime rate, thus weakening the author's claim.

Kudos [?]: 150 [0], given: 1

14 Jul 2005, 10:37
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.