Literacy programs aimed at urban youth who live below the

Question

Literacy programs aimed at urban youth who live below the poverty line have been shown to reduce the incidences of violent criminal offenses by individuals from these poverty-stricken backgrounds. For the state X, the annual cost of these literacy programs exceeds the yearly expenditure on incarceration for violent criminal offenders by a factor of five. Therefore, there is no net economic benefit resulting from literacy programs aimed at the urban poor.

Which of the following statements, if true, is the most damaging to the conclusion above?

 
(A) The cost of incarceration is only a tenth of the economic loss that results from incidences of violent crime.
(B) The cost per student of literacy programs decreases as more students are included in the program, but the efficacy of these programs decreases proportionally as more students are added.
(C) The government has a moral obligation to protect citizens from violent crime that outweighs any economic considerations.
(D) Literacy programs are most effective when coupled with other programs like job training and food stamps aimed at relieving the effects of poverty.
(E) Nearly universal literacy has been achieved in a number of European countries through programs much less costly than those generally employed in the state X.

nero44 · Answer

by POE

In order to weaken the argument, we have to find something, which directly addresses the arguement

E) talks compares costs of other countries. But the argument only referst to country X

D) Not mentioning costs (main issue) at all

C) Same as D
B) mentions costs, but in a wrong context. efficacy is not the main point, therefore it does not address the argument. And information about costs per student is also not provided in the stem. Therefore it cannot weaken the stem

A) is left... It relates the total expenditures to economic benefit/loss. That matches nicely the argument.

ywilfred · Answer

C is the best choice. If the government has a moral obligation to protect citizens from violent crime, then cost should be a secondary factor when evaluating the benefits of keeping the literacy programs.

gsr · Answer

C is the correct one.

It throws out the economic facor which is the basis of the argument's reasoning and says something else is more important - moral obligation.

Folaa3 · Answer

C doesn't damage the conclusion though it in a way it counters it. 
A it is. 
If the cost of incarceration is a tenth of the economic loss that results from the incidence of violent crimes, then it is not true that there is no net economic benefit resulting from literacy programs aimed at the urban poor

ajaytumaney · Answer

One more A. OA please

anandsebastin · Answer

Count another one for A. 
If the economic loss from violent crimes is 10 times the cost of incarceration and the cost of the program is 5 times the cost of incarceration, then it follows that there is a net economic gain from the program. 
Even if the Govt. has a moral obligation, the incarceration of offenders itself is a way of controlling violent crime. So, C doesn't damage the argument.

GMATT73 · Answer

Is it A or C? Let`s get a few more opinions... CR gurus?

automan · Answer

The main conclusion in the argument is that "there is no net economic benefit resulting from literacy programs aimed at the urban poor". correct choise must be able to atack this conclusion. B, C, D and E are all irrelvant to evaluate this conclusion and don't undermine it. So the best answer choice is A.

cdaat · Answer

One more for A

By the POE, i was able to arrive at only A and C. Though C makes sense and damages the conclusion of completely eliminating the program, it does not have any relation to the assumptions (lower crime rates due to the program + high costs ) that make up the conclusion. A takes these assumptions into consideration. In other words, C is out of scope.

ranga41 · Answer

C it is.

A can be rejected because it gives an idea about current loss due to violence but does not mention anything about reduced loss due to the program that reduces violence, in effect though violence reduces the loss of money could still be the same...

kimmyg · Answer

A for me too

hkm_gmat · Answer

Close call between A and C . Though C is tempting; IMO it is wrong. 

Because at issue is the merit of economic benefit. C diverts the attention by bringing moraliity while A states there is a net economic benefit. 

OA Plz ?

ranga41 · Answer

it is clearly C because the question says

Which of the staments if true...? so if the statement introduces morality it has to be considered true that the government has to hold on to its moral...

Bhai · Answer

C.

mohish · Answer

go A go...

GMATT73 · Answer

OA is A.

OE:

ID Question Type and Task
Something which is damaging to an argument`s conclusion weakens the argument, therefore this is a weaken question. 

Task: Find the assumptions in order to attack/undermine one of them. 

Read the Argument and Extract Necessary Information: 
On assumption based questions find the assumption. 

General argument type(s): Causal

General assumption: 
No other cause. 

Specific assumptions: 
No other factor in the net economic benefit other than the two mentioned. 

Formulate an Answer to the Question
Weaken by: 
Introducing another possible economic factor that the argument has not considered.

Eliminate Answer Choices:
(A) Weakens. This introduces another factor in the cost. The crimes also cause economic loss as well as causing costs to incarcerate. 

(B) Strengthens (weakly). This weakly suggests that the programs have limited benefit.

(C) Irrelevant. This does not attack the assumptions about the cause of the benefits. Additionally, government obligations do not factor in the argument about economic benefits. 

(D) Strengthens (weakly). This choice suggests that the programs will be more effective with the aid of other programs, which does not mean they are not effective alone, therefore it does not weaken. Additionally, if they are ineffective alone than this might strengthen the argument. 

(E) Irrelevant. This choice does not attack the assumptions nor does it introduce anything that suggest that Europe is comparable to state X.

Literacy programs aimed at urban youth who live below the

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