Re: Police Chief of Megalopolis: Five years ago, the citys police depart
[#permalink]
08 Mar 2024, 18:10
Police Chief of Megalopolis: Five years ago, the city’s police department introduced innovative policing strategies. Since then, the crime rate in Megalopolis has declined significantly. Our new strategies should be credited with bringing about the decline. It has been objected that there have been significant declines during the past five years in crime rates throughout the nation and that therefore Megalopolis' crime rate would probably have declined even without the new policing strategies. Once we had introduced the new strategies, however, they were soon adopted by police departments in cities throughout the nation, and it was only then that crime rates in those cities began to decline.
The police chief's main conclusion is the following:
Our new strategies should be credited with bringing about the decline.
The passage includes an objection to that conclusion:
It has been objected that there have been significant declines during the past five years in crime rates throughout the nation and that therefore Megalopolis' crime rate would probably have declined even without the new policing strategies.
It also includes a premise that counters that objection and thus supports main conclusion:
Once we had introduced the new strategies, however, they were soon adopted by police departments in cities throughout the nation, and it was only then that crime rates in those cities began to decline.
In the police chief’s argument, the two boldface portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second provides evidence in support of that conclusion.
The first is not the main conclusion. It's not a conclusion at all. It's a statement of fact about what has occurred.
The second does not support the first.
Eliminate.
B. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a conclusion that was drawn to cast doubt on that main conclusion.
The first is not the main conclusion. It's not a conclusion at all. It's a statement of fact about what has occurred.
The second is a conclusion that goes against the main conclusion. At the same time, since the first is not the main conclusion, the second was not "drawn to cast doubt on" the first.
Eliminate.
C. The first presents a phenomenon, a certain explanation of which the argument seeks to defend; the second is a conclusion that was drawn to cast doubt on that explanation.
The first does present a phenomenon, "that the crime rate has declined significantly."
Also, the argument does seek to defend an explanation for that phenomenon, which is "Our new strategies should be credited with bringing about the decline." The police chief defends that conclusion against the objection mentioned in the passage by stating, "Once we had introduced the new strategies, however, they were soon adopted by police departments in cities throughout the nation, and it was only then that crime rates in those cities began to decline."
So, the first part of this choice is correct.
Regarding the second part, it is "a conclusion that was drawn to cast doubt on that explanation." After all, the idea that "Megalopolis' crime rate would probably have declined even without the new policing strategies," is a conclusion supported by "there have been significant declines during the past five years in crime rates throughout the nation." Also, clearly "Megalopolis' crime rate would probably have declined even without the new policing strategies," casts doubt on the conclusion "Our new strategies should be credited with bringing about the decline.
So, the second part of this choice is correct as well.
Keep.
D. The first presents a phenomenon, a certain explanation of which the argument seeks to defend; the second presents evidence to support that explanation.
The first does present a phenomenon, "that the crime rate has declined significantly."
Also, the argument does seek to defend an explanation for that phenomenon, which is "Our new strategies should be credited with bringing about the decline." The police chief defends that conclusion against the objection mentioned in the passage by stating, "Once we had introduced the new strategies, however, they were soon adopted by police departments in cities throughout the nation, and it was only then that crime rates in those cities began to decline."
So, the first part of this choice is correct.
However, the second part of this choice is incorrect because the second boldface portion does not support the conclusion that "Our new strategies should be credited with bringing about the decline." Rather, the second boldface portion goes against that conclusion.
Eliminate.
E. The first presents a phenomenon, a certain explanation of which the argument seeks to defend; the second is the main conclusion of the police chief’s argument.
The first does present a phenomenon, "that the crime rate has declined significantly."
Also, the argument does seek to defend an explanation for that phenomenon, which is "Our new strategies should be credited with bringing about the decline." The police chief defends that conclusion against the objection mentioned in the passage by stating, "Once we had introduced the new strategies, however, they were soon adopted by police departments in cities throughout the nation, and it was only then that crime rates in those cities began to decline."
So, the first part of this choice is correct.
However, the second part of this choice is incorrect because the second boldface portion is not the main conclusion of the police chief's argument. Rather, the main conclusion is "Our new strategies should be credited with bringing about the decline," and the second boldface portion goes against that conclusion.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: C