A recent report determined that although only 2 percent of

Agreed that if just one person is committing the crime, the pc would go up. But thats wat we assume. If we read the argument (option E) , It says, tickets were issued from only one location catching many of the same boaters again and again. Doesn't it also indicate that people who have got ticketed, do tend to commit crime repeatedly there by strengthening the argument??!

"Clearly, boaters who receive a speeding ticket are more likely to exceed the speed limit again in the future than boaters who have never been ticketed for speeding."

When they are measuring first time criminals then the sample is bound to be all different. But fore more than one, many will be repeaters. we agree till here?

now there is the dilemma of "many" and "most". "many" means the number is more than one whereas "most" would mean more than 50%.

also, the use of "same location" is restricting the sample.

If the statement had said that the different locations caught most of the boaters again and again, your argument would hold and this would strengthen the conclusion.

did the explanation make sense?

E for me -- it weakens the assumption.

Not too convincing a weakener but not too bad either. I answered "E" by elimination and also because it gave some considerable reason to doubt the conclusion.

Footnote:
A generalization about an entire population using a report from a localized data set is sometimes, if not always, considered a weak argument by GMAT.

this is not similar to the radar problem of the OG 12 .this is fairly simple compared to that problem in OG

look at this one
a-recent-report-determined-94309.html

An insufficient sampling is never representative. It weakens all generalizations So E is the best .

E is the clear winner as it shows sample/survey is not representative, and therefore we can not conclude anything from this.

Can someone please explain why answer is not D. I understood why answer is E but cant it be D?

If currently there are less people receiving tickets compared with previous tickets means Argument is weakened right?

A recent report determined that although only 2 percent of boaters in Miami have been issued speeding tickets, 40 percent of the boaters issued tickets had received at least one ticket previously. Clearly, boaters who receive a speeding ticket are more likely to exceed the speed limit again in the future than boaters who have never been ticketed for speeding.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the above argument?

A) Boaters in Miami exceed the speed limit more frequently than boaters in other Florida cities.

B) Many boaters that were ticketed for speeding were ticketed more than once in the time period of the report.

C) Miami is more vigilant in ticketing boaters who exceed the speed limit than most other cities.

D) The number of boaters ticketed for speeding during the period of this report is less than the number ticketed during the period of the previous report.

E) During the period of this report, tickets were issued from only one location catching many of the same boaters again and again.



Argument - People who had received ticket in past will receive tickets in future -- > we got this conclusion based on the data

We have to weaken it - We can do that by saying THIS REPORT IS FLAWED

A- Compares with florida - no use
2- Strengthens the conclusion
3- Strengthens the conclusion in some extent since Miami is strict meaning boaters are making mistake
4- Comparison - of no use
5 - Yes if they are catching the boaters from same location again and again there is a flaw

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.