Letter to the editor: According to last Thursday's editorial, someone

Question

Letter to the editor: According to last Thursday's editorial, someone who commits a burglary runs almost no risk of being caught. This is clearly false. Police reports show that at least 70 percent of people who commit crimes are caught. All burglars are criminals, so although  some burglars will undoubtedly escape , a large percentage of them will eventually be caught.

The claim that some burglars will undoubtedly escape plays which one of the following roles in the letter writer's argument? 
 
(A) It is evidence presented in support of the letter writer's conclusion. 
 
(B) It is the conclusion of a subsidiary argument. 
 
(C) It provides an example of the kind of case under discussion. 
 
(D) It restates the position against which the letter writer's argument as a whole is directed. 
 
(E) It concedes a point that does not undermine the letter writer's conclusion.

rajdeep212003 · Answer

I think the correct answer is E.

The statement “although some burglars will undoubtedly escape” is not the main conclusion. 
It is a concession.

The author is basically saying:

“Yes, some burglars may escape...” 
BUT 
“a large percentage of burglars will still be caught.”

So the statement accepts a small opposing point without damaging the overall conclusion.

That is exactly what option E describes.

Why the others do not fit:

(A) Incorrect. 
The statement is not evidence supporting the conclusion. The actual support is:
“70% of criminals are caught” + “burglars are criminals.”

(B) Incorrect. 
It is not the conclusion of a separate argument. Nothing is being proven there.

(C) Incorrect. 
It is not giving an example. It is making a concession.

(D) Incorrect. 
The opposing position was:
“burglars run almost no risk of being caught.”

But the statement says only:
“some burglars will escape.”

That is much weaker and not the same claim.

(E) Correct. 
The author concedes that some burglars escape, but says this does not weaken the main conclusion that many burglars are eventually caught.

So the role of that statement is to acknowledge a minor point while still defending the overall argument.

Answer: E

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

yc168  FYI I changed the tag from Method of reasoning to Boldfaced CR since the question stem resembles the single boldfaced type.

Thanks in advance

Bunuel · Answer

There is no boldface text in the question, so the Boldfaced CR tag does not apply. The Method of Reasoning tag is more appropriate here.

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Hi Bunuel yes you are correct the the sentence is not boldfaced however as per the question we are asked about the role of the sentence from argument. Also the option choice are in same pattern as stated in boldfaced type. Whereas in method of reasoning type the option stem are quite different as per my understanding.

Bunuel

There is no boldface text in the question, so the Boldfaced CR tag does not apply. The Method of Reasoning tag is more appropriate here.

yc168 · Answer

Hi  AbhishekP220108 ,

Thanks for checking the tag. In fact, the Boldface CR question type is discussed in the  Method of Reasoning  chapter in PowerScore CR Bible, so I was a bit struggling with the tags when posting as well...

But I'll be happy to go with what you guys think fits best with the tag definition in this sub-forum. Cheers.

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

yc168  thats something new to me,😂, also I didnt know about powerscore categorises, and I just applied my learning but yes makes sense I think, I also had a discussion with AI. It kind of stated that method of reasoning is broader question type and test prep companies do sometimes put these type of question under them although on a sub level it do falls under boldface type where instead of boldfacing they just mention the sentence in question stem.

guddo · Answer

Letter to the editor: According to last Thursday's editorial, someone who commits a burglary runs almost no risk of being caught. This is clearly false. Police reports show that at least 70 percent of people who commit crimes are caught. All burglars are criminals, so although some burglars will undoubtedly escape, a large percentage of them will eventually be caught. 
 
The claim that some burglars will undoubtedly escape plays which one of the following roles in the letter writer's argument?

The writer’s main conclusion is that a large percentage of burglars will be caught. The claim that some burglars will escape is not support for that conclusion. It is  a concession : the writer admits that not every burglar will be caught, but this does not weaken the claim that  many burglars will be caught .

(A) It is evidence presented in support of the letter writer's conclusion.

Wrong. Saying some burglars will escape does not support the claim that many will be caught.

(B) It is the conclusion of a subsidiary argument.

Wrong. The writer does not argue toward this claim; the writer simply grants it.

(C) It provides an example of the kind of case under discussion.

Wrong. It is not an example. It is a concession about some members of the group.

(D) It restates the position against which the letter writer's argument as a whole is directed.

Wrong. The opposing position is that burglars run almost no risk of being caught. Saying some burglars escape is weaker than that.

(E) It concedes a point that does not undermine the letter writer's conclusion.

Correct. The writer admits that some burglars will escape, but still maintains that a large percentage will be caught.

Answer: (E)

yc168 · Answer

OE for reference:

Overview:  
The letter writer wants to show that a claim made in last Thursday's editorial is false. In order to show this, the writer offers an argument for the conclusion that a large percentage of burglars will be caught. Two premises are presented in support of this conclusion: (1) at least 70 percent of people who commit crimes are caught; and (2) all burglars are criminals. But these two premises actually provide little, if any, support for the conclusion.

(1) indicates that criminals in general are caught at a high rate, and the argument concludes from this that burglars are also caught at a high rate. But nothing in the two premises indicates that the rate at which burglars are caught is at all similar to the rate for criminals in general. The premises don't even guarantee that any burglars at all are among the 70 percent of criminals who are caught. So the argument is flawed because it assumes that if a large percentage of the members of a group (criminals) have a certain property (getting caught), then a large percentage of any part of that group (burglars) will also have that property.

The Correct Answer:

E  As you saw in the "Overview," the letter writer's argument does not conclude that all burglars will be caught, only that a large percentage of burglars will eventually be caught. So the letter writer can concede that some burglars will not be caught without in any way undermining the argument's conclusion. The claim that some burglars will undoubtedly escape does just that. So (E) correctly describes the role that claim plays in the letter writer's argument.

The Incorrect Answer Choices:

A  From the discussion in the "Overview," you can see that the claim that some burglars will escape is not part of the evidence for the conclusion. That claim simply makes it clear that the letter writer is not maintaining that all burglars will be caught, only that a large percentage of them will be caught. So (A) does not correctly describe the role the claim plays in the letter writer's argument.

B  The letter writer provides no evidence for the claim that some burglars will escape. So that claim cannot be the conclusion of any argument expressed in the passage, even a subsidiary argument. Thus the claim does not play the role described in (B).

C  The letter writer's argument focuses on how frequently burglars are caught or not caught. It does not discuss any particular case or kind of case. So nothing in the letter writer's argument could possibly do what (C) describes.

D  The letter writer's argument as a whole is directed against the editorial's position that someone who commits a burglary runs almost no risk of being caught. Saying that some burglars will undoubtedly escape does not restate this position; it is a point on which the letter writer and the editorial agree.

Letter to the editor: According to last Thursday's editorial, someone

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Letter to the editor: According to last Thursday's editorial, someone

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards