Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 16:11 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 16:11
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
User avatar
Sidhrt
User avatar
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
Last visit: 12 Sep 2022
Posts: 48
Own Kudos:
33
Given Kudos: 32
Posts: 48
Kudos: 33
Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets 07 May 2015, 22:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
avatar
rsaahil90
avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2012
Last visit: 24 Nov 2016
Posts: 23
Own Kudos:
19
Given Kudos: 25
Schools: NUS '20
Schools: NUS '20
Posts: 23
Kudos: 19
Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets 23 Nov 2015, 05:58
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
Gottesschaf

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.
Show more
User avatar
warriorguy
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 04 Aug 2016
Last visit: 08 Feb 2023
Posts: 378
Own Kudos:
357
Given Kudos: 144
Location: India
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GPA: 4
WE:Engineering (Telecommunications)
Posts: 378
Kudos: 357
Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets 17 Apr 2017, 22:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
Lucy Phuong
User avatar
Joined: 24 Jan 2017
Last visit: 12 Aug 2021
Posts: 116
Own Kudos:
347
Given Kudos: 106
GMAT 1: 640 Q50 V25
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.48
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Posts: 116
Kudos: 347
Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets 27 Apr 2017, 02:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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!
User avatar
devikeerthansr
User avatar
Joined: 26 Sep 2017
Last visit: 29 Nov 2021
Posts: 215
Own Kudos:
576
Given Kudos: 34
Status:To infinity and beyond
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
Schools: McCombs '21 Yale '21 Anderson '21 Mendoza '21 Goizueta '21 Kelley '21 Carlson '21
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V32
GPA: 3.31
WE:Engineering (Computer Software)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: McCombs '21 Yale '21 Anderson '21 Mendoza '21 Goizueta '21 Kelley '21 Carlson '21
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V32
Posts: 215
Kudos: 576
Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets 22 Nov 2017, 03:28
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
arbinose
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.
Show more

I agree. One more thing, when the rider checks for his possessions it becomes easier for the thief to find the valuables !
avatar
gvrk_77
avatar
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Last visit: 19 Feb 2018
Posts: 13
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 3
Posts: 13
Kudos: 1
Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets 08 Jan 2018, 21:27
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I feel C is by far worst answer. Before sign boards were used, people might have forgotten about their belongings. Now Sign boards are present, those people who sees sign boards are aware and that is why people keep checking of their belongings all the way and no way yo can rob things from the people who are aware.

The best option for me is E, although this might not explain increase in the number, but says that subway is so crowded and that we can assume people not able to watch sign boards.
User avatar
US09
User avatar
Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Last visit: 06 Apr 2021
Posts: 247
Own Kudos:
302
Given Kudos: 338
GMAT 1: 560 Q42 V25
GMAT 2: 570 Q43 V27
GMAT 3: 710 Q49 V39
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 3: 710 Q49 V39
Posts: 247
Kudos: 302
Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets 25 Feb 2018, 06:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
C.

Conclusion is: "Since" the new signs have been erected, the riders have had their pockets picked at nearly double the rate than before. We have to look for the change that the signs brought because of which the rate increased by two times.

(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. Does not give any information on how becoming more attractive to tourists=double the rate. Incorrect.

(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. Overcrowding may be a possible reason for the pickpocketers to find easy targets. But then, what is the significance of the signs that were erected? Hold but check other options with some connection between signs and rate increase.

(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. So the signs made it easier for the pickpocketers to do their jobs. Hold.

(D) The number of individuals convicted of petty theft or grand theft for picking pockets at Central Station has decreased within the past year. Does not directly relate with our conclusion of signs erected=rate increase. Incorrect.

(E) Most of the pickpockets’ victims were riding the subway during peak travel hours, when Central Station is especially crowded. Possible contender. But again, does not relate "signs" with the conclusion. The conclusion clearly states "since the signs were erected. Hence, something must have changed after the signs were erected that made it easier for the pickpocketers and doubled the rate of incidences. Incorrect.

Therefore, only C clarifies the situation.
avatar
Prateek176
avatar
Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Last visit: 10 Jun 2021
Posts: 180
Own Kudos:
92
Given Kudos: 87
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Schools: ISB '21 (D) IIMC MBAEx "21 (WL)
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V37
GPA: 4
Schools: ISB '21 (D) IIMC MBAEx "21 (WL)
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V37
Posts: 180
Kudos: 92
Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets 06 Mar 2018, 12:36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja , broall

Didn't understand why C is the correct answer
User avatar
abhimahna
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Last visit: 06 Jul 2024
Posts: 3,514
Own Kudos:
5,728
Given Kudos: 346
Status:Emory Goizueta Alum
Products:
My Reviews
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,514
Kudos: 5,728
Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets 07 Mar 2018, 00:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
prateek176
GMATNinja , broall

Didn't understand why C is the correct answer
Show more

Hey prateek176 ,

C is correct for the right reasons.

Adding those signs actually helped pickpocketers. You may ask how?

Consider I am passing through that sign, the moment I checked that sign, I tried to verify whether my wallet is at the right place.

Now, some thief was looking at my actions and got to know where are my valuable stuffs. Hence, it becomes easy for the thief to pickpocket it once I am going away from those signs.

Hence, option C is clearly providing the negative impact of those signs and helps resolving the paradox.

Does that make sense?
avatar
NonPlus
avatar
Joined: 05 Jan 2014
Last visit: 26 Feb 2019
Posts: 55
Own Kudos:
28
 [2]
Given Kudos: 156
Location: India
Schools: IIM (S) Erasmus '20
GMAT 1: 610 Q47 V26
GPA: 3.76
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: IIM (S) Erasmus '20
GMAT 1: 610 Q47 V26
Posts: 55
Kudos: 28
 [2]
Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets 19 Nov 2018, 06:51
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
abhimahna
prateek176
GMATNinja , broall

Didn't understand why C is the correct answer

Hey prateek176 ,

C is correct for the right reasons.

Adding those signs actually helped pickpocketers. You may ask how?

Consider I am passing through that sign, the moment I checked that sign, I tried to verify whether my wallet is at the right place.

Now, some thief was looking at my actions and got to know where are my valuable stuffs. Hence, it becomes easy for the thief to pickpocket it once I am going away from those signs.

Hence, option C is clearly providing the negative impact of those signs and helps resolving the paradox.

Does that make sense?
Show more


I don't think it does. It is a low quality question. In your explanation itself, you have to write out so many assumptions viz. thief was looking at you (How come it got doubled), it becomes easier for them (Why can't it be more difficult since people have moved their valuables to safer location e.g. from wallet in the pocket to wallet in bag).

Justifying a fallible argument doesn't make sense.
avatar
rahul6019
avatar
Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Last visit: 21 Jan 2019
Posts: 66
Own Kudos:
71
Given Kudos: 22
Posts: 66
Kudos: 71
Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets 19 Nov 2018, 08:00
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Here rummage means an untidy or unsystematic search. If people after reading signs search their belongings in unsystematic way, then chances are that they end up leaving them in incorrect position to easily fall off while walking. Later upon realizing the belonging is missing, they report it as pick-pocketed.

I agree this question has a lot of assumptions and looks like a poor quality one.
User avatar
arya251294
User avatar
Joined: 03 Jan 2019
Last visit: 16 Mar 2024
Posts: 188
Own Kudos:
57
Given Kudos: 368
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
Posts: 188
Kudos: 57
Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets 12 May 2021, 20:24
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
parker
Hey guys,

I agree that you have to make some assumptions about C--something that might help with this one is knowing that you *almost always* have to make some assumptions (unless you are in one of those rare, lsat-like questions with more formal logic). It's more accurate to think of the real question here as what "most explains" the discrepancy...meaning--which of the choices requires the fewest and smallest assumptions? It's all relative.

The discrepancy that we're trying to address is "why did the per capita instances of pickpocketing double after warning signs were posted?"

I won't go into all the choices, since the original poster copied the explanation. The main contention in this thread seems to be between A-B-C, so let's assume we got rid of D and E and deal with these.

As a couple of posters mentioned above, *per capita* is a huge red flag phrase here. That means the number of pickpocketed people divided by the total number of people, doubled. This could happen a number of ways, so let's use a number to help make the situation tangible--100 people, and 10 are pickpocketed per day, so there's an original per capita pickpocket rate of 0.1.

(1) if the total population stays the same--100 people, but the rate doubles to 0.2, or 20 people, that means that out of a (fictionalized) 100 people, 10 of the people who were NOT pickpocketed before ARE pickpocketed now.

(2) if the total population increased--let's say, it increased by 100%, so we now have 200 people. In order for the rate to double to 0.2, we would need 20% of the new total population (200 people), or 40 people, to be pickpocketed after the signs go up. Notice you had to increase the number of pickpocketed people by more than two, to compensate for the ratio increase AND population increase.

(3) if the total population decreased--let's say, to 50 people. The per capita pickpocket rate we're aiming for is 0.2, and 20% of 50 is 10, so 10 people still get pickpocketed, but there are only 50 people total, so the only people who left the original population were non-pickpocketed people.


Choice (A) says that the station has become much more attractive to tourists since the signs were posted during a recent renovation. Now in general, it's a good idea to be suspicious of assumptions that fall into common stereotypes; the test-writers know many common "real world" broad assumptions, and will use that to trap people. There is a broad stereotype about tourists being easy targets. But even if that were true (assumption 1) AND tourists are TWICE as likely to get pickpocketed (assumption 2) we'd have to make another assumption (no.3) about the rest of the population balancing out in a way to result in our desired statistic. That's the long version--the short version is that COMMON STEREOTYPES THAT ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY JUSTIFIED IN THE ARGUMENT should be targets of major suspicion as you go through choices. There isn't a necessary causal link between being a tourist and being an easy target--I, for one, am super paranoid and careful when I travel and have never (knock on wood) been pickpocketed while traveling, though I have in my home city!

Choice (B) doesn't necessarily help us because the phase "per capita" is in the argument. Look at situation #2 above-- if the traffic doubles, but the rate of pickpocketing is the same, the per capita rate doesn't change. In our example above with the population of 100 and a 100% increase in population, the rate of pickpocketing would have to quadruple to give us a doubled per capita rate.

Choice (C) does involve some assumptions,yes-- that the pickpocketers will pay attention to the rummaging going on and use it to their advantage. But this is not a terribly illogical assumption to make, since their goal is to pickpocket people, and these people are behaving in an obvious way that would assist that goal.

Hope this helps. Remember that correct/incorrect on verbal can seem relative, which is why you should ALWAYS go through all the answers and eliminate what's definitely wrong (or has the most problems) rather than trying to find the perfect answer.
Show more

It can be "E" as well right? Assuming that the people were not able to look at the sign because of the crowd & the chaos thus helped pickpocket.
avatar
abhishekbisaria
avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2019
Last visit: 06 Nov 2024
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 60
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets 17 May 2021, 01:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Why C?

The sign gets erected -> More People check their possessions [at the said location] -> More people report that their pockets have been picked [at the said location]

If it were not for the increased checking, people would not know that their pockets were picked at said location, and so their case just would not register.
User avatar
rvgmat12
User avatar
Joined: 19 Oct 2014
Last visit: 15 Nov 2025
Posts: 356
Own Kudos:
373
Given Kudos: 189
Location: United Arab Emirates
Schools: Wharton '23 Booth '23 INSEAD Jan'21 Intake
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Wharton '23 Booth '23 INSEAD Jan'21 Intake
Posts: 356
Kudos: 373
Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets 02 Apr 2022, 12:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
OE:

A
The riders’ city of origin is irrelevant to the frequency of pickpocketing, unless unwarranted assumptions are made about the vulnerability of out-of-towners to pickpocketing.

B
A doubling of the number of riders at Central Station would help to explain a sharp rise in the absolute rate at which riders’ pockets are picked, but does not explain a rise in the per-capita theft rate. Although it is possible that the additional crowding induced by the new riders might raise the likelihood of pickpocketing, that inference would require additional assumptions.

C = Correct
If riders walking past the new signs tend to rummage through their pockets or feel through their clothes to verify the presence of their possessions, then lurking pickpockets will be able to locate those possessions by watching the riders’ hands – something which will help them to steal the possessions, and which they were unable to do before the new signs were erected.

D
In general, but especially because pickpocketing is a crime whose offenders largely go unpunished (because the crime is not discovered until well after the fact), there is no clear relationship between the frequency of pickpocketing and the rate at which offenders are convicted for it.

E
No connection is made to the massive increase in pickpocketing during the last year, so this consideration is irrelevant.

The correct answer is C.
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,830
Own Kudos:
986
Posts: 18,830
Kudos: 986
Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets 19 Oct 2025, 22:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts