Thirty years ago, the town of Flatsburg had one of the highest crime..

The only doubt I have is that is it safe to confirm by analogy that because it happened in other towns it will happen in Town F.(option A)
I have found some weakener questions where this logic turns out to be wrong

Posted from my mobile device

Hi ,

B is not irrelevant. Think in this way if the size or change in Police department is made then it might be possible that crime rate is reduced because of the change.B says it's constant so it strengthen the argument by saying that it because of factories crime rates is brought down

Answer is A.

If population will have job..they will gate wage(money) . They can full fill his/her requirements . No need to make crime for money.

IMO
B seems more like an assumption than an explanation.
The argument relies on the assumption that the police force remained constant, but it does not explain the result as much as an evidence supporting the correlation (between low crime rate & low unemployment rate) does.
Please suggest.

I am not satisfied with the option B it only tells that police force remained constant all time ( this is just another factor that could have been possible for the change , there are many other factors as well, institution of strict punishment for crimes ,, and the main point is that it does not strengthen the fact that it is related to unemployment or unemployment is the main cause of crimes ..
Again - in summary, it just states that out of all other factors that could be possible for decline in crime rates X( police force increased vigilance ) is not the reason...so it must be the y(unemployment decline in the town) but what about other factors P (STRICT LAWS) Q ( CAMERAS INSTITUTED AT EVERY STREET OPERATED 24/7) just giving the idea please explain if somehow my reasoning is wrong.@GMATNinja@nightblade354

Seems like the tie breaker is A and B.

Structure:
Premise 1: F has lower crime rate than 30 years ago.
Premise 2: F opened a new factory that lowers the unemployment rate.
Conclusion: Low employment rate causes lower crime rate.
Prephrase: other factors may have caused the crime rate to drop - say increased police force? -> Answer B is correct.

Answer A: it is wrong because "Many other towns in the county with low crime rates also have low unemployment rates" indicates low crime rate is a given premise in these towns and low unemployment rate is the result. This is reversed logic, or at least unclear in which is the cause and which is the effect.

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Identify the Question Type

The correct answer will "provide the most support" for the argument given, making this a Strengthen question.

Untangle the Stimulus

The economists argue that the opening of factories in Flatsburg is responsible for the decrease in crime. The evidence is that factories gave people jobs. The economists are assuming that there is a connection between reducing unemployment and reducing the crime rate, perhaps that people with jobs are less likely to commit crimes than people without jobs.

Predict the Answer

This is a causal argument, a common argument pattern on the GMAT. The economists are assuming that the factories are the cause of the decreased crime rate and not considering any other possible cause. To strengthen such an argument, either the correct answer will provide additional evidence to connect more employment to less crime, or it will show that other potential causes were not a factor.

Evaluate the Choices

(B) eliminates an alternative explanation and is correct. A greater effort on the part of the police, or a greater number of officers, could have been responsible for reducing the crime rate. By eliminating this alternative, this choice makes it more likely that the factories are indeed the cause, thus strengthening the economists' argument.

(A) may be tempting but does not help. While this suggests that there is a between employment and crime in other towns, there's no support for the idea that the lower unemployment rate is the cause of the decrease in crime. Also, there could still be towns with high crime rates that are also low in unemployment, which would make this correlation completely irrelevant. Finally, what happens in other towns may or may not be relevant to the situation in Flatsburg.

(C) is irrelevant. The economists are assuming that employment relates to crime, not that pay rates relate to crime. This choice requires the further assumption that people were committing crimes for money. If crimes were committed for nonfinancial reasons, then good salaries would have no impact on preventing crimes.

(D) is a potential 180, if one assumes that most people work during the day. If most crimes are at night, then having a job during the day would do nothing to prevent crimes when they occur most often. And even if people work at night, it's still irrelevant when the crimes happen. All that matters is why they happen (or in this case, why they stopped).

(E) is an irrelevant comparison. The crime rate of other counties has no bearing on what caused the crime rate in Flatsburg to drop. There's no indication here why the crime rate increased elsewhere, so this statement has no effect on the economists' causal argument.

TAKEAWAY: Causal arguments are common on the GMAT. A common way to strengthen them is to dismiss a potential weakener.

B is irrelevant to economist's explanation. It's more like an assumption.

Let's go through the options one by one-

A. This definitely shows a correlation of crime rates with respect to unemployment rates but it mostly looks at the conditions for other towns in the county. It may be possible that the police has become more vigilant or there might be several other criteria like education which could have led to low crime rates

B. This statement tells that with the other factors remaining the same, the crime rate has gone low. Only factor that is responsible for that is the presence of job opportunities in Flatsburg. And hence it is the OA.

C. Does not really support the statement. The question never mentioned that low wages were the problem. It brings in another factor so can be ruled out

D. It weakens the statement by supporting the fact that crimes occur outside working hours. That means it still must be prevalent.

E. Does not really help explain the decreased crime rate in Flatsburg.

Thirty years ago, the town of Flatsburg had one of the highest crime rates in the county. Since then, the crime rate has dropped dramatically, and Flatsburg now has one of the lowest crime rates in the county. Economists argue that this precipitous decline is the result of new factories that opened about thirty years ago in Flatsburg. These factories hired many local citizens and helped reduce the unemployment rate in Flatsburg by over 65 percent.

Conclusion - decline in crime rates in Flatsburg is the result of new factories that opened about thirty years ago

Solved this question via POE

Which of the following, if true, provides the most support for the economists' explanation?

A) Many other towns in the county with low crime rates also have low unemployment rates. IRRELEVANT. Conclusion is related to employment of Flatsburg


B) The size of the police department in Flatsburg and the responsibility of its officers has remained relatively constant for the past thirty years. Correct . This option suggests that no alternate cause is responsible for the decline of crime rates

C) Most of the jobs offered by the new factories pay significantly more than the minimum wage. IRRELEVANT. Conclusion is related to employment of Flatsburg

D) Most of the crimes committed by citizens of Flatsburg occur in the evening. Weakner .

E) Over the past thirty years, the crime rate increased in most other towns in the county. IRRELEVANT. Conclusion is related to employment of Flatsburg

So here's how I would look at this one:- Drop in crimes due to increased employment from the factories.

A) Many other towns in the county with low crime rates also have low unemployment rates. -- Causality not explained, may seem tempting but we dont know the cause -effect relation here.

B) The size of the police department in Flatsburg and the responsibility of its officers has remained relatively constant for the past thirty years. -- At the 1st read, keep this aside if its not convincing we will get to it shortly. Good thing is this option talks about Flatsburg county. Based on POE this options works.

Yes you could go about punching holes in this statement and say that the police force should have reduced but no change in size doesn't weaken the stem.

C) Most of the jobs offered by the new factories pay significantly more than the minimum wage. -- Out of scope

D) Most of the crimes committed by citizens of Flatsburg occur in the evening. -- Out of scope

E) Over the past thirty years, the crime rate increased in most other towns in the county. -- Causality not explained, may seem tempting but for all we know it could be an apples and oranges comparison.

See if this helps explain the reasoning/ logic in such questions.

ANSWER IS "B" "The size of the police department in Flatsburg and the responsibility of its officers has remained relatively constant for the past thirty years."

This shows there is no other reason, as mentioned in the answer choice, which leads to a lower crime rate.
A is irrelevant as it talks about other towns in a country, which are not the author's concern