It is currently 14 Dec 2017, 00:29

Decision(s) Day!:

CHAT Rooms | Ross R1 | Kellogg R1 | Darden R1 | Tepper R1


Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Posts: 66

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 6

Re: Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Nov 2013, 22:07
Thanks VerbalBot
Though I chose (b), but then I realized "Per Capita" = no. of incidence/no. of people. Per capita increase means either numerator increase or denominator decrease.
So, C

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 6

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10199

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Nov 2014, 11:27
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.

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
Posts: 92

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 31

Re: Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 May 2015, 21:02
Its clearly C.

In the year since the signs have been erected, though, riders have had their pockets picked at Central Station at a per-capita rate nearly doubled. it can only happen when the number of pockets per person is increased or the people with higher number of pockets join existing subway riders.

option C conveys a reason for the increase in the number of pockets/person vulnerable to theft.

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 31

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 39

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 25

Schools: NUS '20
Re: Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Nov 2015, 04:58
Hello,

With E as well, we can make a single assumption that if the station is too crowded, people were not able to see the hoardings/because everyone was rushing nobody cared for the hoardings - This is also in kind of line with what we assume for B.

Thank you



IanStewart wrote:
Gottesschaf wrote:
Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets picked at Central Station had risen to an all-time high, the transit authority erected signs in Central Station telling riders to beware of pickpockets. In the year since the signs have been erected, though, riders have had their pockets picked at Central Station at a per-capita rate nearly double that before the signs were erected.

Which of the following, if true, helps to explain the discrepancy pointed out in the passage?

A.) Since Central Station’s major renovation, during which the signs were erected, Central Station has become much more attractive to tourists from out of town.

B.) Rising gas prices and a surging downtown job market have caused the daily number of riders at Central Station nearly to double within the past year.

C.) Riders walking past the new signs tend to rummage through their pockets or feel through their clothes to verify the presence of their possessions.

D.) The number of individuals convicted of petty theft or grand theft for picking pockets at Central Station has decreased within the past year.

E.) Most of the pickpockets’ victims were riding the subway during peak travel hours, when Central Station is especially crowded.


I don't think this is a good question at all; I can justify almost all of the answer choices by making appropriate assumptions, yet can justify none of them without making assumptions.

Something must have changed since the signs were erected for the pickpocketing rate to have changed, so we're looking for an answer which describes a potentially relevant change. If "Central Station has become much more attractive to tourists from out of town" (where else would tourists be from?) then the population of potential victims has changed; it's certainly reasonable to think that the pickpocketing rate might therefore change. Answer A seems like a fine answer to me. This has nothing to do with 'common stereotypes' and all to do with population bias; if you do an experiment on one population, you can reasonably expect different results if you do the same experiment on a different population. I'd add that you also can't use the criterion "be suspicious of common stereotypes" to rule out answer choices on the real GMAT, since the real GMAT will never include even the vaguest allusion to any kind of stereotype.

Answer B also describes a change since the signs were posted. It's certainly not far-fetched to think that pickpockets can operate more easily in a crowded environment, so B seems like a justifiable answer.

Answer C suggests that the signs are actually working; passengers are more vigilant about their possessions because of the warnings. The justification for answer C in the OE is, to be generous, tenuous, and is based on just as many assumptions as would be a justification for the other plausible answers.

I'm not sure why no one has considered D here. If fewer pickpockets are being prosecuted/convicted, then it's reasonable to think there will be fewer pickpockets in jail and more pickpockets in Central Station, and further there will be less of a deterrent to pickpocketing if there is less reason to fear conviction. It seems like a possible explanation for the increase in pickpocketing incidents.

E is the only answer that I think can be discarded out of hand, since it doesn't describe anything that has necessarily changed since the introduction of the signs.

I suppose the OE rules out B and D because they don't relate the posting of the signs to the increase in pickpocketing incidents, but it's not clear from the language of the question that we need to do that; any alternate explanation is enough to explain the 'discrepancy', whether that explanation relates to the signs or not.

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 25

Chat Moderator
avatar
P
Joined: 04 Aug 2016
Posts: 592

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 140

Location: India
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Telecommunications)
Premium Member CAT Tests
Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Apr 2017, 21:05
I agree with the views posted here. My reason to chose A over C was that we want to justify something post the signs were posted.

Phrase from the stem --> Last year it increased to an all time high but year since signs were posted, it even doubled.

C is true for entire last year but we want something which gives us clue post signs were posted. Only A talks about increase in population post signs were posted.

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 140

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 24 Jan 2017
Posts: 165

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 106

GMAT 1: 640 Q50 V25
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.48
Reviews Badge
Re: Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Apr 2017, 01:25
I always bear in my mind that Resolve the Paradox questions are all about explain why A (warning sign) but still B (increasing pickpocket rate). A (warning sign) must be involved and take a part in right answer. That's why I did choose right answer (C) quite quickly.

This is my thoughts when I come across answer choices (A) and (B):
I think both are very tempting. Yes they may all explain why B (increasing pickpocket rate) happens.. but LOOK. Do they mention A (warning sign)? No! Can you see that choices (A) and (B) can still explain for "increasing pickpocket rate" even when "warning sign" does not exist? Then this is not what we need in Resolve the Paradox type of questions!

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 106

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Status: To infinity and beyond
Joined: 26 Sep 2017
Posts: 77

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 5

Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q50 V30
GPA: 3.31
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Nov 2017, 02:28
arbinose wrote:
One can assume that tourist can be easy target for pick pocketing, yet it is difficult to find a correlation as even tourist can read the beware board and become cautious about their possessions, so A can be easily rule out, C seems like the only somewhat logical explanation for the given discrepancy.


I agree. One more thing, when the rider checks for his possessions it becomes easier for the thief to find the valuables !

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 5

Re: Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets   [#permalink] 22 Nov 2017, 02:28

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 27 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets

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


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.