Could anyone please explain the approach to negate a double negative sentence...
Thank you in advance.

Negating statement C i.e.
The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released. This makes the conclusion that these inmates commit crimes after being released invalid. The reason is that these inmates are already less likely to commit crimes.

So, C it is.

Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released from prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

(B) Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.

(C) The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

(D) Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.

(E) The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.

I still don't understand why A is wrong.
The negation as a lot of ppl pointed out is "not taking the courses is likely to deter someone from committing crime", if that's true, then the newspaper editorial's conclusion about the governor's action countering his/her objective is wrong. So A has to be an assumption, No?

C as well: The argument claims that inmates who take college level courses are less likely to commit crimes when they get out. But it may be that those inmates who had taken those classes did so because they seek out education and a way out of crime, thus less likely to commit a crime with or w/o the college level classes. Option C clarifies that prior to taking the classes, all inmates are just as likely to commit crimes when they are released, and that the college classes reduce this likelihood.

C as well: The argument claims that inmates who take college level courses are less likely to commit crimes when they get out. But it may be that those inmates who had taken those classes did so because they seek out education and a way out of crime, thus less likely to commit a crime with or w/o the college level classes. Option C clarifies that prior to taking the classes, all inmates are just as likely to commit crimes when they are released, and that the college classes reduce this likelihood.

Goal: Reduce crime rate
Conclusion: The effort to be harsher may be counter to the goal
Support: Inmates with education commit less crimes than others when they get out. This helps reduce crime in a way.
A - This option doesn’t help the argument in any way. It is neutral.
B - Comparison should be b/w Educated Inmates vs Other Inmates. Not with the general population. Out of Scope
C - This option rules out the possible challenge that Education would not have had the intended effect. Possible Answer
D - Not a relevant Comparison. Out of Scope
E - Irrelevant. Governor’s goal is not the point of discussion here.

A and C are the contenders, if we were to not understand Option A.
Rephrasing A using simple language:
If someone does not take the course in prison, then this inability is not going to stop someone from committing a crime which they would have committed if they took the course.

Let’s employ the Negation Technique.
A -> Not being able to take college-level courses when in prison is likely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might have committed. -> This is 180 to the conclusion. We don’t need a 180, we need the argument to be totally collapsed.
C -> The inmates who took courses were already less likely to commit crimes than others -> This means that courses have no effect, and this essentially devastates the conclusion.

C is our answer

Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released from prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

(B) Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.

(C) The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

(D) Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.

(E) The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.

The argument presents the following premises:

To reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and is making prison conditions harsher
Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses.

Conclusion

This action goes against the governor’s ultimate goal. Why? The inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.

We need to find the assumption on which the argument depends. (An option that strengthens the conclusion)

A- Option A goes against the conclusion of the argument. The argument says that inmates who had taken college-level courses committed fewer crimes compared to other inmates who had not taken college-level courses. Option A negates the conclusion saying it’s not the case. Hence we eliminate option A.

B- The comparison here is between former inmates and the members of the general population. This is an irrelevant comparison.

C) The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

If the group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released, then the reason for them to not commit crimes after being released is that they took college-level courses. This strengthens our conclusion and is our answer.

D) Here, the comparison is between taking high school level courses and college-level courses and not the probability of committing crimes with/without taking college-level courses.

E) Option E can be clearly eliminated as it says that the intention of the governor was to gain popularity. This is not relevant to the argument at all.

Vishnupriya
CrackVerbal Prep Team
_________________

Not sure why many people are not addressing this particular aspect of option A that makes this option incorrect.

Argument:
if course taken -> commit fewer crimes than someone who has not taken the course.

Option A:
Not taking a course will not stop inamtes from committing the crimes.



There are many such questions unanswered in option A. And hence, option A is incorrect.
_________________

can someone highlight the conclusion and the premise here as we have contrasting premises and how do we assume without negating the statement?

I thought that the conclusion was to get tough on crimnals and make prison conditions harsher.

Hello, Jaya6. Most of the time, the conclusion can be found at the end of the passage, particularly in assumption questions. (Boldface questions are another story.) Looking at this passage, we can see a judgmental turn of phrase in the last sentence when everything prior has been more informative—that is, earlier in the passage, we have been told by a third party what the governor aims to do. The turn of phrase I refer to is this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, and it is the argument within the editorial. (Who says the action is clearly misguided? That is more opinion than fact.) Meanwhile, since is a premise marker, used to justify an argument or conclusion. In other words, the argument says that because inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates [after being released from prison], the governor's efforts are counterproductive to his or her own goal. So, how do we tease out the necessary assumption?

Many students, tutors, and teachers of the test prefer the negation technique on such questions, and for this type of analysis, I would urge you to read more of the thread above. I, however, prefer to tackle the answers directly, seeking a missing link between premise and conclusion in the following manner:

1) Premise—inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates [after being released from prison]

2) Assumption—? [insert answer choice]

3) Conclusion—this action [to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses] is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal [to reduce the crime rate]

Choices (A) and (C) are the only two viable options, and of the two, (C) directly leads to the conclusion, while (A) runs contrary to it. (If (A) were true, why would the author of the editorial arrive at a seemingly opposite conclusion?) Since others have discussed these two answers more in depth above, I will again refer you to earlier posts. I was simply hoping in this post to help you identify how an argument is constructed. Typically, it will consist of background information that leads into premises, which in turn build up to an argument or conclusion.

I hope that helps. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

Thank you Andrew, that was quite useful.
can I reach out to you for any questions that I have? if yes, then how?

Of course you can, Jaya6. All you have to do is request an Expert reply and write my name, tag me using the mention button, or PM me with questions. I am part of this community in an effort to steer people toward sounder GMAT™ reasoning, and I am pretty good about responding when called upon.

- Andrew