It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 23:30

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

Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover

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

Hide Tags

2 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Aug 2004
Posts: 9

Kudos [?]: 57 [2], given: 0

Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Nov 2004, 20:12
2
This post received
KUDOS
17
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  25% (medium)

Question Stats:

74% (01:11) correct 26% (01:40) wrong based on 828 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 57 [2], given: 0

3 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 150

Kudos [?]: 12 [3], given: 0

Location: Dallas, TX
Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Nov 2004, 20:19
3
This post received
KUDOS
I picked C.

If the inmates who chose to take college class were already less likely to commit crimes after release, then taking away access to college classes may not have any affect on their crime rates after prison.

Sinced the conclusion states that "inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates", this conclusion must assume that all inmates have the same likelihood to commit a crime after release and it's the college classes that reduces this likelihood.

Kudos [?]: 12 [3], given: 0

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 55

Kudos [?]: 7 [1], given: 0

Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2007, 17:42
1
This post received
KUDOS
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.

Kudos [?]: 7 [1], given: 0

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 Sep 2007
Posts: 115

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

Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2007, 21:09
ttram wrote:
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 form 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 fail to see why C would be a better answer than A.

The hypothesis is: "this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal." And we can infer that the ultimate goal refers to "less crime."

Without A, the argument falls apart because it's giving a reason why it's not counterproductive in lowering crime.

C is the opposite of what we want, because it's saying that it doesn't matter if we have courses to begin with because the people taking them are already less likely (and will still be less likely) to commit crimes when they get out.

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

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 34

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 0

Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2007, 10:17
JingChan wrote:
ttram wrote:
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 form 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 fail to see why C would be a better answer than A.

The hypothesis is: "this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal." And we can infer that the ultimate goal refers to "less crime."

Without A, the argument falls apart because it's giving a reason why it's not counterproductive in lowering crime.

C is the opposite of what we want, because it's saying that it doesn't matter if we have courses to begin with because the people taking them are already less likely (and will still be less likely) to commit crimes when they get out.


The argument means: we have 2 groups: inmates attending the course (1), and inmates do not attending the course (2).

People in group (1) has a crime after release is less than group (2).

(A) means: if s.o cannot take the course (group 2), it does not mean that he/she avoid the crime that he/she committed.

(c) means: Group (1) before (already) attend the course is the same with the other (it means one who does not attend the course, group 2). Thus, it means the course changes people and prevent people from crime after release.

(C) supports the conclusion stronger and more clearly than (A). (A) does not say that if s.o takes the course, will he/she avoid the crime or not (which the conclusion mentioned).

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 0

VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1439

Kudos [?]: 218 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2007, 20:11
JingChan wrote:
ttram wrote:
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 form 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 fail to see why C would be a better answer than A.

The hypothesis is: "this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal." And we can infer that the ultimate goal refers to "less crime."

Without A, the argument falls apart because it's giving a reason why it's not counterproductive in lowering crime.

C is the opposite of what we want, because it's saying that it doesn't matter if we have courses to begin with because the people taking them are already less likely (and will still be less likely) to commit crimes when they get out.


A is 100% right. I had chosen C as well in 30 seconds flat. And then when I started reading the choices, I realized what a TRAP of a choice C is. C actually weakens the argument that it was attending the course that lead to fewer crimes. C offers an alternative that the people who attended the course were less inclined to commit crimes.

A on the other hand says - NOT attending a course IS UNLIKELY deter folks from committing a crime. THe use of two negatives convolutes the choice and in the pressure of time constraint such choices can very easily be misread/misinterpreted or plainly not understood.
However A must be assumed for the argument to hold. If you negate A - that attending the course has no effect on the propensity to commit crime, the argument that the governor's step is counter to his intentions of reforming people will be invalidated.

Kudos [?]: 218 [0], given: 13

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 Sep 2007
Posts: 115

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

Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Oct 2007, 17:14
JDMBA wrote:
C Does not say they are less inclined. It says they are NOT less inclined. If you negate this and take out the NOT, then yes it weakens the argument, which makes it the correct answer.

However I do see the argument for A.


After re-looking at the question, the reason why C is not as strong is that it doesn't show that taking away schooling is clearly counter to the goal of the mayor.

The word clearly means that we only need to show a glimmer of possibility for productiveness to undermine that conclusion.

If we assume that C is not true, we realize that all this implies is that the schools were useless. People who were already less likely to commit crimes took the classes. But without the classes, they are still less likely to commit crimes.

Taking this out does not negate that taking out schools is clearly counter-productive to decreasing crime, it just shows in this area it was not productive.

A however, shows that there's a possibility that taking schools away could be productive.

Hope this clarifies things.

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

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 34

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 0

Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Oct 2007, 19:01
JDMBA wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
JingChan wrote:
ttram wrote:
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 form 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 fail to see why C would be a better answer than A.

The hypothesis is: "this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal." And we can infer that the ultimate goal refers to "less crime."

Without A, the argument falls apart because it's giving a reason why it's not counterproductive in lowering crime.

C is the opposite of what we want, because it's saying that it doesn't matter if we have courses to begin with because the people taking them are already less likely (and will still be less likely) to commit crimes when they get out.


A is 100% right. I had chosen C as well in 30 seconds flat. And then when I started reading the choices, I realized what a TRAP of a choice C is. C actually weakens the argument that it was attending the course that lead to fewer crimes. C offers an alternative that the people who attended the course were less inclined to commit crimes.

A on the other hand says - NOT attending a course IS UNLIKELY deter folks from committing a crime. THe use of two negatives convolutes the choice and in the pressure of time constraint such choices can very easily be misread/misinterpreted or plainly not understood.
However A must be assumed for the argument to hold. If you negate A - that attending the course has no effect on the propensity to commit crime, the argument that the governor's step is counter to his intentions of reforming people will be invalidated.


C Does not say they are less inclined. It says they are NOT less inclined. If you negate this and take out the NOT, then yes it weakens the argument, which makes it the correct answer.

However I do see the argument for A.

Is this an official GMAT question?


Yes, it is. My GMAT teacher gave me this question as the exercise. I see this question is interesting and want to share with all of you.

The answer is C.

A seems the answer, too. However, it is not as strong as C. The key word in C is "already", it means at the beginning.

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 13 Oct 2009
Posts: 116

Kudos [?]: 101 [0], given: 66

Location: USA
Schools: IU KSB
Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Dec 2009, 08:33
LADodgers wrote:
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 form 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.

OA will follow. Please explain your answes. Thank you.


conclusion - since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.

Assumption for this conclusion - 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.

Answer is C

Kudos [?]: 101 [0], given: 66

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 96

Kudos [?]: 231 [1], given: 11

Location: Bangalore,Karnataka
Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jan 2010, 10:11
1
This post received
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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 form 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.

Kudos [?]: 231 [1], given: 11

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Status: Yeah well whatever.
Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 341

Kudos [?]: 78 [0], given: 17

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q42 V39
GMAT 2: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.49
WE: Analyst (Insurance)
Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jan 2010, 14:57
I don't get your logic for A. C works to me. If we hold that the courses didn't actually affect the proclivity of released felons to recommit crimes like C infers (because the better behavior wasn't due to the education, rather this good group sought out education) then the narrorator's point against the governor's plan falls apart because the governor's change will actually not encourage criminal behavior.
_________________

He that is in me > he that is in the world. - source 1 John 4:4

Kudos [?]: 78 [0], given: 17

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Math Forum Moderator
avatar
P
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 4967

Kudos [?]: 5455 [1], given: 112

Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Jan 2010, 04:11
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
vannbj wrote:
I don't get your logic for A. C works to me. If we hold that the courses didn't actually affect the proclivity of released felons to recommit crimes like C infers (because the better behavior wasn't due to the education, rather this good group sought out education) then the narrorator's point against the governor's plan falls apart because the governor's change will actually not encourage criminal behavior.

hi , the logic by which i replied A is that in C i think there is change in scope.....
the passage is concerned if guv's plan "to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses" would be helpful however the scope is shifted in C to if these courses are helpful..... only A is the assumption closest to scope
_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

Kudos [?]: 5455 [1], given: 112

Current Student
avatar
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 315

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 23

Schools: Yale SOM
Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Jan 2010, 09:14
I agree with chetan2u. My answer would be A. See my explanations below.

kirankp wrote:
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 form 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.Had trouble with this. Seems like a lot of 'negatives'. I re-read it to say "Being able to take college level courses while in prison is likely to deter anyone from a crime he or she might otherwise have committed if he/she didn't take the courses."
B.Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.Out of scope because it mentions 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. This answer states that all things equal, the inmates who chose to take college-level courses were just as likely to commit crimes after being released as those who do not take the courses. This says nothing about the effect of taking the college level courses.
D.Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does. Out of scope because it mentions high school level courses.
E.The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.Out of scope because it mentions governor's goal of gaining popularity.

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 23

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Status: Yeah well whatever.
Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 341

Kudos [?]: 78 [0], given: 17

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q42 V39
GMAT 2: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.49
WE: Analyst (Insurance)
Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Jan 2010, 16:09
Yeah. It doesn't say anything about the affect of taking college level courses but if the point of the argument that the governor's plan "is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal" because "being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates" then how does this argument not assume that "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"?

According to beatthegmat.com (http://www.beatthegmat.com/governor-and ... 14221.html) you guys are right and the OA is A but I don't see how C shifts the scope as to whether or not the courses were helpful. Also, since perserverance reworded A, I don't see how the argument doesn't assume them both. It's okay though. I'll take Manhattan GMAT as soon as I get my bonus and then I should have an eye to discern such differences. Thanks for your help, guys. I guess I just don't get this one. Every so often that happens.
_________________

He that is in me > he that is in the world. - source 1 John 4:4

Kudos [?]: 78 [0], given: 17

Current Student
avatar
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 315

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 23

Schools: Yale SOM
Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jan 2010, 09:41
mojorising800 wrote:
C acc to me
OA plz?


The OA is C as stated below.

vannbj wrote:
Yeah. It doesn't say anything about the affect of taking college level courses but if the point of the argument that the governor's plan "is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal" because "being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates" then how does this argument not assume that "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"?

According to beatthegmat.com (http://www.beatthegmat.com/governor-and ... 14221.html) you guys are right and the OA is A but I don't see how C shifts the scope as to whether or not the courses were helpful. Also, since perserverance reworded A, I don't see how the argument doesn't assume them both. It's okay though. I'll take Manhattan GMAT as soon as I get my bonus and then I should have an eye to discern such differences. Thanks for your help, guys. I guess I just don't get this one. Every so often that happens.

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 23

VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1439

Kudos [?]: 218 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jul 2010, 23:11
I found this question very interesting - there are competing OA's (A and C) doing the rounds - and IMO both of them are correct depending on what we consider the ARGUMENT to be. If the argument is based on the the governor's plan - viz banning the course would constitute a deterrent - then we need to assume that - not being able to take the course would act as a deterrent to commit crimes. Because if it does not - then people would keep committing crimes without paying heed and the governor's plan would fall apart.

On the other hand if the ARGUMENT is taken to be - the author's arugment that the governor's plan is flawed - the author of the passage bases her conclusion on the premise that - people who have taken the courses committed less crime after being released. For THIS conclusion to hold - we must necessarily assume that people were NOT ALREADY LESS LIKELY to commit the crimes anway. If they were then the usefulness of the course would be questionable and the AUTHOR'S argument falls apart.

My question is - what is the right approach in this question? I had chosen C - thinking it is the Author's conclusion whose assumption needs to be ascertained. But after hearing other people's comments about A - I am not sure what this question is really asking... Can an expert help? Testluv? Tommy? Sarai? Please!

Kudos [?]: 218 [0], given: 13

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 Apr 2010
Posts: 19

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 7

Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jul 2010, 22:46
The following is Ron Purewal's (i.e the GOD of GMAT verbal) explanation:

nah, this should definitely be (c). you probably just have the wrong answer key.

the argument depends upon the assumption that eliminating college-level courses will have an effect on inmates' rates of recidivism ("counter to the governor's ultimate goal"). in other words, the argument is assuming that the college-level courses CAUSE differences in the inmates' behavior.

if you're going to argue that X causes Y, one necessary precondition (assumption) is that Y DOESN'T cause X.
this is precisely what is asserted in (c), which should be the correct answer.

--

not only is (a) in incorrect assumption, but (a) actually runs EXACTLY COUNTER to the argument.

if the presence/absence of college courses will NOT DETER crime, then that is essentially saying that it has no effect.
therefore, since there's no effect, this action will NOT be "counter to the governor's ultimate goal".

hence (a) is not only a wrong assumption; it actually undermines the argument!
_________________
ron purewal

instructor, mgmat



vannbj wrote:
Yeah. It doesn't say anything about the affect of taking college level courses but if the point of the argument that the governor's plan "is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal" because "being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates" then how does this argument not assume that "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"?

According to beatthegmat.com (http://www.beatthegmat.com/governor-and ... 14221.html) you guys are right and the OA is A but I don't see how C shifts the scope as to whether or not the courses were helpful. Also, since perserverance reworded A, I don't see how the argument doesn't assume them both. It's okay though. I'll take Manhattan GMAT as soon as I get my bonus and then I should have an eye to discern such differences. Thanks for your help, guys. I guess I just don't get this one. Every so often that happens.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 7

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 17

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

Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Aug 2010, 05:53
C

kirankp wrote:
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 form 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. - Passage states that the inmates who had taken the courses committed fewer crimes overall than other inmates. Fewer does not mean the same. A out.
B.Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population. - N/A
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. - Answer
D.Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does. - N/A
E.[/b]The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime. - N/A

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

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 173

Kudos [?]: 210 [0], given: 9

Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Sep 2010, 23:27
7
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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 form 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.

Kudos [?]: 210 [0], given: 9

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Time to step up the tempo
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 404

Kudos [?]: 248 [1], given: 50

Location: Milky way
Schools: ISB, Tepper - CMU, Chicago Booth, LSB
Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Sep 2010, 23:38
1
This post received
KUDOS
amitjash wrote:
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 form 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.


At first glance option A and C were narrowed down. Option C looks to me as being the best assumption that the argument depends even though the OA is option A.

Here is my reasons for siding with option C.

Argument: Governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.

Option A: This option attacks the need for courses access by prison inmates. This has nothing to do with revoking the access to the courses ... in fact.... this option is further strengthening the action taken by the governor [to revoke the course access.]

Option C: This statement is the best assumption and it brings out the correlation versus causality debate. The fact that the former inmates who have taken course work have committed less crimes could be a correlation and it does not indicate cause and effect relationship. This is the assumption made in the argument.
_________________

:good Support GMAT Club by putting a GMAT Club badge on your blog :thanks


Last edited by ezhilkumarank on 18 Sep 2010, 23:47, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 248 [1], given: 50

Re: Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover   [#permalink] 18 Sep 2010, 23:38

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 50 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover

  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®.