The rate of violent crime in this state is up 30 percent from last yea

What I found here was that 35pc decrease in police force resulted in 35pc increase in violent crime.

Almost seemed to me like a red herring or a cause/effect (which is true), but the percentages through me off the track a little.

Hi Elegan,

They key to do well in Strengthen, Weaken, and Assumption questions is to focus on Conclusion and see what all evidence/ Facts in the statement proves or supports the conclusion. \
Then find your own answer before looking at the answer choices as to what can actually weaken /strengthen the question or what are the assumption the argument has made to make the conclusion.

This process will improve your accuracy and timing as well.

Suggest you ti give it a try to 5-10 question. You will see the difference.

@Vips: Just an example of 'arguments are not perfect':

(C) 35 percent of the police in this state have been laid off in the last year due to budget cuts.

You say (C) WILL weaken the argument and hence is the answer. I will say 'C CAN weaken the argument and hence is the answer.

Since 35% of the force was laid off, there are fewer policemen around and hence security is lax. This could be another reason for increased crime. Hence (C) could weaken the argument.

On the other hand, what if I tell you that the police force laid off consisted of just the bureaucracy or these were the people who harbored criminals. Or that the rest of the 65% force is working double shifts whole heartedly to retain their jobs. This could actually strengthen/have no effect on the argument since the police force is more efficient after it was cleaned up.

The intent of the option is obviously to weaken it but you could weaken or strengthen with more data. Hence do not look for foolproof options.

The rate of violent crime in this state is up 30 percent from last year. The fault lies entirely in our court system: Recently our judges' sentences have been so lenient that criminals can now do almost anything without fear of a long prison term.

The argument above would be weakened if it were true that
Conclusion of this Argument is "Crime rate is increasing because our Court system is faulty" i.e. it's a typical Cause Effect relationship. In order to weaken a cause effect relationship we need to show that something else is responsible for increasing crime rate.
(A) 85 percent of the other states in the nation have lower crime rates than does this state -We are not concerned about other states: moreover, this option does not reveal any info about the leniency of Judges in other states. Incorrect.
(B) white collar crime in this state has also increased by over 25 percent in the last year - So what. We are only concerned with the cause of violent crimes rather than the breakup of those crimes. Incorrect.
(C) 35 percent of the police in this state have been laid off in the last year due to budget cuts - Bingo. Gives another cause for the stated effect. CORRECT
(D) polls show that 65 percent of the population in this state oppose capital punishment- It given that Judges are lenient but we can not assume that judges will not be lenient if they give capital punishment. Moreover we are not interested why Judges are lenient because we are not trying to find the assumption here. Incorrect.
(E) the state has hired 25 new judges in the last year to compensate for deaths and retirements- OFS

Hope this helps.
Fame

C for sure.

None of the other choices talk about why there might be another reason due to which the crime has increased.
Option C says that the police have been laid of, which can be a possible reason for the increase in crime rates, hence the answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

C

If we can show that something besides the court system may explain the increase in crime (if we can show a different cause for the same effect) we would weaken the argument. The author, after all, assumes that there is no other cause (a common GMAT assumption). Tackle the choices, looking for another cause besides the allegedly lenient court sentences.

(A) is a classic faulty comparison. The argument does not compare one state to another. The argument's scope is the crime rate increase in this state only. In (B), the fact that white-collar crime is also on the rise is more of a strengthener than a weakener-maybe it is the leniency in the courtroom that is responsible for an overall crime surge. (C) presents an alternative explanation for the increase in crime. Maybe it is not the judges at all but the fact that there are fewer cops on the street. As for (D), what if 65% of people in the state oppose capital punishment? What if 100% of people in this state oppose capital punishment? This provides little insight into why crime has gone up since last year. (E) tells us that numerous judges have been replaced in the last year. It is possible that the new judges are more lenient, but this would only strengthen the author's conclusion.

­

in order to weaken the arguement we need a reason which is says it is not because of the judges ..... it because of some other reason the crime rate increased ......

option C says because of the lay off's in the police force crime rate increased.­