The executive committee of the shopping mall announced that more offic

Let's first identify the discrepancy, using the author's own words as much as possible. "Although most of {the 44 armed robberies committed in the mall's parking lots during last year's holiday shopping season} occurred in the mall's northern parking lot, none of the additional officers {i.e. the officers who will be added to the mall security force for the holiday shopping season}, will be assigned to the northern parking lot." Notice that I avoided paraphrasing and rewording so that I would not unintentionally change the author's meaning. Now let's break down the author's logic:

• We know that "44 armed robberies were committed in the mall's parking lots during last year's holiday shopping season."
• "Most of those armed robberies occurred in the mall's northern parking lot."
• The mall security force currently consists of 10 officers.
• In an effort to keep shoppers safe from violent crimes, the executive committee of the shopping mall announced that more officers will be added to the mall security force for the holiday shopping season.
• However, none of the additional officers will be assigned to the northern parking.

So if most of those 44 armed robberies occurred in the northern parking lot and the mall wants to add more officers to the force because of those violent crimes, why wouldn't the new officers be assigned to the northern parking lot? We need a statement that most helps to explain the apparent discrepancy:


If all of the current officers spend much of their time patrolling the northern parking and there were STILL 44 armed robberies, this evidence simply supports the executive committee's decision to add more officers to the force, which is clearly too small to protect customers from armed robberies. However, this statement does not help explain why none of those new officers will be assigned to the northern parking lot, so (A) should be eliminated.


Perhaps mall shoppers will feel safer if the number of officers inside the mall increases. If the goal of were to make shoppers simply feel safer, then perhaps this statement would explain why the newly hired officers would be stationed inside the mall rather than in the northern parking lot. However, the goal is "to keep shoppers safe from violent crimes", not simply to make shoppers feel safer. Thus, choice (B) does not adequately explain the discrepancy and should be eliminated.


The current security force has to patrol all areas of the mall and all parking lots, not just the northern lot. If more officers are added to the force, the security force's CURRENT team of experienced officers can focus on the northern lot, where most of the armed robberies occurred, and the new officers can focus on the other areas that don't have as many problems. This statement helps explain why none of the new officers will be assigned to the northern parking lot, so (C) looks good.


We are trying to explain why none of the additional officers will be assigned to the northern parking lot "for the holiday shopping season." Statement (D) might explain why the new officers will not be assigned to the northern lot during the rest of the year, but it does not explain the discrepancy in the passage. Eliminate (D).


The new officers will be added "to keep shoppers safe from violent crimes." Reducing the number of non-violent crimes is not the goal, so choice (E) is not relevant. Eliminate (E).

(C) is the best choice.