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)

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..

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.
_________________

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

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.

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

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??

I would like to add to the discussion.
My answer is A and A is the perfect answer here, I suppose:

Argument is based on the causality that repealing strict gun laws should reduce violent crime rate
Basis: The crime rate in the countries with strict gun control laws, as per the stats of 1986, is 50 % higher than average rate of 11 countries with non-strict gun control laws.
Prediction: 1) The first point is based on the stats of just 1986, we are deriving a causality. Anything that proves that the strict gun laws have already reduced the violent rates would weaken the conclusion.

There was a slight problem to select among options A, B & E.
E. This can't be an answer because it just says of all people in countries with no-strict rules there are fewer than half people who own gun. But we do not know what was the crime rate of people owning the gun. Since we are given numbers in the option, we can't form a basis to weaken the causality because the basis of causality is on rates. An important point to note here is that even if the option said that the violent crime is commited by less than half people, then also this option would not have been a weakener. Because the basis of the conclusion is on rate and the reasoning for the conclusion would stand as is.
A. This option is our answer because it says w/o the laws the rate of crime was even higher
B. This option says that the arrests of people who commit the crime. This option does not impact the causality at all. The causality stands as is. This can be reasoned as: India has a democracy since every person has equal rights. This claim is not weakened by -Some politicians take advantage of poor people because they(poor) do not know how to execute the rights. This opinion does not mean removing democracy in India will reduce exploitation of poor. Similarly, the flaw of releasing the suspects/criminals can be a problem due to loose implementation of strict laws. Maybe removing those laws would increase rather the crime rates. In nutshell, If a system is loosely implemented, doesn't mean removing that system would solve our problem. Hence B can't be an answer.

Regards,
Rishav

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?

Premise: states with strict gun-control laws (G-CLs) have higher crime rate than the ones without them.
Conclusion: to reduce violence, repeal this law.
Possible weaken choice: repealing this law doesn't reduce violence / G-CLs actually help with crime rate


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

Even though the crime rate in these states are high, it was even higher before w/o the G-CLs --> the laws helped

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

if this is the case, let's include the ones who are violating but not prosecuted, we would find the number 645 might actually be larger. This potentially means/strengthens the opinion that G-CLs increases the violent rate --> strengthen the conclusion.

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

That doesn't say whether the states with G-LCs have training or not. If they didn't, training wouldn't make a difference.

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

we are not talking about nonviolent crime here. If you have to make this choice work, you can change it to: nonviolent crime might decrease/increase/have some impact on the possibility of violent crime, etc.

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

similar to C, it is an one-sided answer. This answer only talks about states w/o G-CLs but what if same number of people who reside in states w/ strict G-CLs own a gun? Then the number of people owning guns wouldn't make a difference on the laws.
_________________

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the logic behind choice A is weird. Here is my analysis.

Premise: states with gun control has higher crime rate and states without gun control has lower crime rate
Conclusion: removing gun control law will lower crime rate

Pre-thinking: Gun control law doesn't lead to increase in crime rate, but some factor will do (maybe people or culture)

None of the answer align with pre-thinking

A is the best answer, however, A not only weakens the conclusion but also weakens the premise. Since it is basically stating exactly opposite of what premise stats.

I thought premises are always true and answer choices that deny premises tend to be wrong.

Can someone tell me my thought process has any issues?

Hi Flozy,

The premise compares States with gun control laws - Category 1 with States that do not have gun control laws- Category 2.
Option A,however, only talks about Category 1 States. Hence, it does not contradict the premise. Option A essentially says that violent crime rate in Category 1 states might have been 700 or 800 crimes, which came down to 645 after the passage of laws. So, let's not conclude that laws should be repealed. Option A asks us to make an apple to apple - category 1 before/after instead of category 1 vs. category 2 - comparison.

Hope this helps!

In absence an explanation by an expert, below is the Official Guide 10 explanation.

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.

Choice A, the best answer, indicates that the opposite is true and so weakens the argument. No other choice undermines the argument.

The infrequency of prosecutions under strict gun-control laws (choice B) does not indicate that these laws have no effect on violent crime.

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

Similarly, without more information the relevance of the nonviolent crime rate (choice D) cannot be assessed.

Hope this helps!