Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 24 May 2017, 13:12

### 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

Manager
Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 93
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 15 [2] , given: 2

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

### Show Tags

22 May 2009, 06:13
2
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

78% (02:13) correct 22% (01:39) wrong based on 75 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.

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..
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by carcass on 24 Jan 2017, 11:34, edited 1 time in total.
If you have any questions
New!
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1902
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 1122 [0], given: 1

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
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 254
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 156 [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
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 262
Location: nj
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 275 [0], given: 2

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.
Manager
Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 93
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 15 [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..
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 254
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 156 [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..

SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1902
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 1122 [0], given: 1

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
_________________
Manager
Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 93
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 15 [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...
Manager
Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Posts: 61
Location: Korea, Republic of
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT Date: 08-16-2012
GPA: 3.05
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 89 [1] , given: 37

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.

Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 201
Concentration: General Management, Operations
Schools: HBS '19 (S)
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 349

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
Intern
Joined: 20 Feb 2014
Posts: 10
Followers: 0

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

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.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 538
Concentration: Technology, Other
Followers: 35

Kudos [?]: 473 [0], given: 606

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.
_________________

--------------------------------------------------------
Regards

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10371
Followers: 997

Kudos [?]: 224 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2015, 11:36
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent   [#permalink] 05 Sep 2015, 11:36
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 The rate of violent crime in this state is up 30 percent 4 03 Oct 2013, 05:15
4 The rate of violent crime in this state is up 35 percent 8 26 Sep 2015, 08:14
7 In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent 4 19 Apr 2016, 01:32
1 Currently people in the United States eat, on the average, 3 11 May 2012, 10:31
2 In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent 8 26 Aug 2016, 18:27
Display posts from previous: Sort by