GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 20 Jun 2018, 00:28

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 04 May 2015
Posts: 2
Re: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 May 2015, 09:11
Ok, let's play some maths with this CR for a clearer picture.

1) The percentage of released criminals arrested while under intensive supervision = a/b , whereas a = number of re-arrested, b = number of released criminals under supervision

2) The percentage of released criminals arrested while under routine supervision = c/d , whereas c = number of re-arrested, d = number of released criminals under supervision

Based on one premise, we have a/b = c/d

3) Now read the conclusion again "so intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes. " , we have x/ b >= y/ d , whereas x = number of additional crimes committed by criminals under intensive supervision, y = number of additional crimes committed by criminals under routine supervision

4) Now we look at C to see why it's the assumption. C reads " The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under routine supervision.",
arrests to crimes = re-arrested / number of additional crimes = a/x or c/y
C means a/x not much > c/y
Negating C means a/x >> c/y . , we have a/b = c/d based on premise, then (a/b) / (a/x) << (c/d) / (c/y) <=> x/b << y/d , which is the opposite of conclusion. Thus, C must be the assumption here.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 190
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT Date: 11-23-2015
GPA: 3.6
WE: Science (Other)
Re: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under [#permalink]

Show Tags

04 Jul 2015, 23:59
Hello,

andymann.

I am also on same page.

I think, the only reason (D) is incorrect is because it restricts the "sample space" to "criminals under intensive supervision.

Thanks
Vikas
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8100
Location: Pune, India
Re: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Jul 2015, 23:32
1
earnit wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
souvik101990 wrote:
Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under routine supervision. A recent program has allowed criminals to leave prison early under intensive supervision; they must obey curfews and in some cases they must be electronically monitored. The percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision, so intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

(A) The criminals under intensive supervision, but not those under routine supervision, were required to work or attend school during their supervision period.

(B) All of the criminals who were arrested while under routine supervision had been in prison more than once before being paroled and put under supervision.

(C) The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under routine supervision.

(D) Of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have committed crimes if they had been under routine supervision.

(E) The number of criminals put under routine supervision was not significantly greater than the number of criminals put under intensive supervision.

Responding to a pm:

Premises:
Criminals released on parole are put under routine supervision.
A recent program allows criminals to leave prison early under intensive supervision;
The percentage of re-arrests is same for intensive supervision as well as for routine supervision.

Conclusion:
intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes

The key word is highlighted. We are saying that since both types of supervision result in the same percentage of re-arrests, it means both have the same success rate in preventing crimes. There is a gap in this logic. Based on the number of re-arrests (which is same for both), we are assuming the number of crimes committed are the same under both types of supervision. What if, number of crimes committed is much higher under routine supervision but re-arrests are rarer? Then can we say that both methods are equally effective in preventing crimes? No. So option (C) is an assumption. It says that the proportion of arrests to crimes committed was similar in both.

On the other hand, (E) doesn't affect our argument. The number put under each is of no consequence to us. We are comparing percentages. Since their percentages are similar, we can certainly compare their effectiveness even if the number of criminals is different.

VeritasPrepKarishma,

Just need a bit of clarity on the highlighted portion: It says that we are assuming that no. of crimes committed are same under both types of supervision.
Please correct me, if i am wrong but are we not assuming that the PROPORTION of re-arrests to crimes committed is same for both types of supervision.

$$Re-arrests/Crimes Committed$$ for Intense Supervision = $$Re-arrests/Crimes Committed$$ for Routine Supervision

We are given that the Percentage of re-arrests is same under both types of supervision but that doesn't mean that the number of re-arrests is same, right?
And by that logic, we can conclude that the two ratios must be equal, hence the same proportion but not necessarily have the same numbers.
For ex: re-arrests to no. of crimes committed proportion for both routine and intense supervision respectively-:
$$3/5 = 6/10$$
So, here the number of crimes committed are different, yet the two ratios are equal.

Thank you.

We are given that the percentage of re-arrests is the same. This means that if 100 people each were released under the two systems, in both cases there were say, 10 re-arrests. (So 10% re-arrests in both cases) - This is given.
But to arrive at the conclusion, we are assuming that the percentage of crimes committed was the same in both cases. So if 100 people were released under each program, we need to assume that the same number committed crimes in both cases to be able to say that "intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes".

Point is that the argument gives the link between re-arrests and criminals released. But it draws conclusion of the link between re-arrests and the actual number of crimes. The argument tells us nothing about the actual number of crimes. The actual number of crimes could have been very different in the two cases. Perhaps 30 of the people released under routine supervision committed crimes again but only 10 got re-arrested... On the other hand, only 15 of the people released under intense supervision committed crimes again and 10 got re-arrested. We are assuming that this is not the case to conclude that "intensive supervision is not more effective".
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199 Veritas Prep Reviews Retired Moderator Joined: 18 Sep 2014 Posts: 1174 Location: India Re: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under [#permalink] Show Tags 31 Oct 2015, 11:26 Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under routine supervision. A recent program has allowed criminals to leave prison early under intensive supervision; they must obey curfews and in some cases they must be electronically monitored. The percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision, Conclusion: so intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes. those on parole cannot be more than the people on routine supervision. but % of criminals who got caught is same for both categories. more people on intensive supervision may have got caught. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies? (A) The criminals under intensive supervision, but not those under routine supervision, were required to work or attend school during their supervision period..............OUT of scope (B) All of the criminals who were arrested while under routine supervision had been in prison more than once before being paroled and put under supervision................This does not help us much. Although not really sure why it doesn't. (D) Of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have committed crimes if they had been under routine supervision. so this means hat they committed crimes only because they are under intensive supervision i.e., intensive encourages them to commit more crimes i.e., it is worse rather than being more effective. Negates the conclusion. Well I got stuck between C and E. (E) The number of criminals put under routine supervision was not significantly greater than the number of criminals put under intensive supervision. This cant be true as you don't release almost half of the inmates on parole. (C) The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under routine supervision. Well I chose E at first but this came out to be the assumption when the test of negation is applied. negated C: The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under routine supervision. i.e., more crimes under intensive supervision same as D thereby collapsing the argument. So This is an assumption. _________________ The only time you can lose is when you give up. Try hard and you will suceed. Thanks = Kudos. Kudos are appreciated http://gmatclub.com/forum/rules-for-posting-in-verbal-gmat-forum-134642.html When you post a question Pls. Provide its source & TAG your questions Avoid posting from unreliable sources. My posts http://gmatclub.com/forum/beauty-of-coordinate-geometry-213760.html#p1649924 http://gmatclub.com/forum/calling-all-march-april-gmat-takers-who-want-to-cross-213154.html http://gmatclub.com/forum/possessive-pronouns-200496.html http://gmatclub.com/forum/double-negatives-206717.html http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-greatest-integer-function-223595.html#p1721773 https://gmatclub.com/forum/improve-reading-habit-233410.html#p1802265 Intern Joined: 22 Aug 2014 Posts: 45 Re: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under [#permalink] Show Tags 29 Mar 2016, 08:20 VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: souvik101990 wrote: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under routine supervision. A recent program has allowed criminals to leave prison early under intensive supervision; they must obey curfews and in some cases they must be electronically monitored. The percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision, so intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies? (A) The criminals under intensive supervision, but not those under routine supervision, were required to work or attend school during their supervision period. (B) All of the criminals who were arrested while under routine supervision had been in prison more than once before being paroled and put under supervision. (C) The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under routine supervision. (D) Of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have committed crimes if they had been under routine supervision. (E) The number of criminals put under routine supervision was not significantly greater than the number of criminals put under intensive supervision. Responding to a pm: Premises: Criminals released on parole are put under routine supervision. A recent program allows criminals to leave prison early under intensive supervision; The percentage of re-arrests is same for intensive supervision as well as for routine supervision. Conclusion: intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes The key word is highlighted. We are saying that since both types of supervision result in the same percentage of re-arrests, it means both have the same success rate in preventing crimes. There is a gap in this logic. Based on the number of re-arrests (which is same for both), we are assuming the number of crimes committed are the same under both types of supervision. What if, number of crimes committed is much higher under routine supervision but re-arrests are rarer? Then can we say that both methods are equally effective in preventing crimes? No. So option (C) is an assumption. It says that the proportion of arrests to crimes committed was similar in both. On the other hand, (E) doesn't affect our argument. The number put under each is of no consequence to us. We are comparing percentages. Since their percentages are similar, we can certainly compare their effectiveness even if the number of criminals is different. Answer (C) Great analysis. I did it correct without deeply thinking this subtle point. The gap here is the crimes to re-arrested ratio rather than stated ratio of release to re-arrested. Fortunately, there was not more challenging option regarding this. So, I just considered C and E and thought it is a just percentage vs number trap. But now, I realise the unnoticed depth. I think we need to examine every word of the conclusion and look for any new/unfamiliar words there in order to find out the gap. Senior Manager Joined: 15 Oct 2015 Posts: 341 Concentration: Finance, Strategy GPA: 3.93 WE: Account Management (Education) Re: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under [#permalink] Show Tags 29 Mar 2016, 16:07 souvik101990 wrote: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under routine supervision. A recent program has allowed criminals to leave prison early under intensive supervision; they must obey curfews and in some cases they must be electronically monitored. The percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision, so intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies? (A) The criminals under intensive supervision, but not those under routine supervision, were required to work or attend school during their supervision period. (B) All of the criminals who were arrested while under routine supervision had been in prison more than once before being paroled and put under supervision. (C) The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under routine supervision. (D) Of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have committed crimes if they had been under routine supervision. (E) The number of criminals put under routine supervision was not significantly greater than the number of criminals put under intensive supervision. Good one here. Assumption: logic gap, alternate cause, questionable premise. I see all 3 as possible assumptions. But there is a big leap to the conclusion. From percentage to decision. So watch out for option talking about numbers. There is another leap. a jump from ARREST in the premise to conclusion on CRIME. So anyone arrested commited crime? OK I agree. Let's check the option quickly. Only C addresses the logic gap. The trouble with E is that it said the opposite of what is in my logic gap. C Manager Joined: 30 Mar 2016 Posts: 54 Re: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under [#permalink] Show Tags 22 Jul 2016, 03:06 Same doubt. Can someone clarify this VeritasPrepKarishma? StudentHaas wrote: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under routine supervision. A recent program has allowed criminals to leave prison early under intensive supervision; they must obey curfews and in some cases they must be electronically monitored. The percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision, so intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies? (A) The criminals under intensive supervision, but not those under routine supervision, were required to work or attend school during their supervision period. (B) All of the criminals who were arrested while under routine supervision had been in prison more than once before being paroled and put under supervision. (C) The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under routine supervision. (D) Of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have committed crimes if they had been under routine supervision. (E) The number of criminals put under routine supervision was not significantly greater than the number of criminals put under intensive supervision. I have doubt regarding option D, it says that "of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have commited crime if they had been under routine supervision", if we negate it , it becomes, "of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would have commited crime if they had been under routine supervision". I was wondering doesn't it kills the conclusion that intensive supervision is no more effective Verbal Expert Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 3200 Location: Germany Schools: HHL Leipzig GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47 WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech) Re: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under [#permalink] Show Tags 23 Jul 2016, 05:26 jjindal wrote: Same doubt. Can someone clarify this VeritasPrepKarishma? StudentHaas wrote: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under routine supervision. A recent program has allowed criminals to leave prison early under intensive supervision; they must obey curfews and in some cases they must be electronically monitored. The percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision, so intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies? (A) The criminals under intensive supervision, but not those under routine supervision, were required to work or attend school during their supervision period. (B) All of the criminals who were arrested while under routine supervision had been in prison more than once before being paroled and put under supervision. (C) The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under routine supervision. (D) Of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have committed crimes if they had been under routine supervision. (E) The number of criminals put under routine supervision was not significantly greater than the number of criminals put under intensive supervision. I have doubt regarding option D, it says that "of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have commited crime if they had been under routine supervision", if we negate it , it becomes, "of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would have commited crime if they had been under routine supervision". I was wondering doesn't it kills the conclusion that intensive supervision is no more effective The negative statement of option D implies that some people would have committed crime irrespective of whether they were under routine supervision or intensive supervision. This implies that the intensive supervision was NOT more effective for "some " people - this statement is the same as the conclusion, whereas negating D should have broken down the argument, if D were an assumption. (If D were an assumption, negation of D would prove that Intensive supervision IS more effective) Intern Joined: 29 Apr 2017 Posts: 22 Schools: Yale '20 (I) GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V27 GMAT 2: 730 Q51 V37 Re: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under [#permalink] Show Tags 21 Jun 2017, 21:16 VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: souvik101990 wrote: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under routine supervision. A recent program has allowed criminals to leave prison early under intensive supervision; they must obey curfews and in some cases they must be electronically monitored. The percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision, so intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies? (A) The criminals under intensive supervision, but not those under routine supervision, were required to work or attend school during their supervision period. (B) All of the criminals who were arrested while under routine supervision had been in prison more than once before being paroled and put under supervision. (C) The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under routine supervision. (D) Of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have committed crimes if they had been under routine supervision. (E) The number of criminals put under routine supervision was not significantly greater than the number of criminals put under intensive supervision. Responding to a pm: Premises: Criminals released on parole are put under routine supervision. A recent program allows criminals to leave prison early under intensive supervision; The percentage of re-arrests is same for intensive supervision as well as for routine supervision. Conclusion: intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes The key word is highlighted. We are saying that since both types of supervision result in the same percentage of re-arrests, it means both have the same success rate in preventing crimes. There is a gap in this logic. Based on the number of re-arrests (which is same for both), we are assuming the number of crimes committed are the same under both types of supervision. What if, number of crimes committed is much higher under routine supervision but re-arrests are rarer? Then can we say that both methods are equally effective in preventing crimes? No. So option (C) is an assumption. It says that the proportion of arrests to crimes committed was similar in both. On the other hand, (E) doesn't affect our argument. The number put under each is of no consequence to us. We are comparing percentages. Since their percentages are similar, we can certainly compare their effectiveness even if the number of criminals is different. Answer (C) Hello karishma, As per my understanding, the below is given in the question: (#of criminals rearreasted under intense/ Total. # of criminals under Intense Sup.)*100= (#of criminals rearreasted under Routine/ Total. # of criminals under Routine Sup.)*100= Thus, if we are saying in the conclusion that the # of rearrests are same, we are assume that the total # of criminals under the 2 programs are the same. Thus, shouldn't answer Choice "E" be more relevant? Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 8100 Location: Pune, India Re: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under [#permalink] Show Tags 23 Jun 2017, 03:37 bhavikagoyal2009 wrote: Hello karishma, As per my understanding, the below is given in the question: (#of criminals rearreasted under intense/ Total. # of criminals under Intense Sup.)*100= (#of criminals rearreasted under Routine/ Total. # of criminals under Routine Sup.)*100= Thus, if we are saying in the conclusion that the # of rearrests are same, we are assume that the total # of criminals under the 2 programs are the same. Thus, shouldn't answer Choice "E" be more relevant? The conclusion does not say that # of rearrests are the same. It only says that "intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes" based on the data that "percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision". Say the percentage in both cases is 25. So the numbers for the two cases could be "25 /100", "50/200" or "25/100", "100/400" etc From this, it concludes that intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes. The actual numbers could be anything. _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Dec 2015
Posts: 277
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
WE: Investment Banking (Venture Capital)
Re: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Sep 2017, 16:35
Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under routine supervision. A recent program has allowed criminals to leave prison early under intensive supervision; they must obey curfews and in some cases they must be electronically monitored. The percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision, so intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

(A) The criminals under intensive supervision, but not those under routine supervision, were required to work or attend school during their supervision period.
- completely out of scope. who cares?

(B) All of the criminals who were arrested while under routine supervision had been in prison more than once before being paroled and put under supervision.
- same as "A"

(C) The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under routine supervision.
- correct as is. we're looking at the proportion of arrests, as clearly stated in the conclusion.

(D) Of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have committed crimes if they had been under routine supervision.
- same as "A"

(E) The number of criminals put under routine supervision was not significantly greater than the number of criminals put under intensive supervision.
- the only acceptable wrong answer here. if you carefully read the conclusion, the passage is concerned with the arrests made

SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1899
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Nov 2017, 17:02
boiled down to C and E.
C is correct b/c C connects arrests with crimes.
E is an important pattern, but E is out of scope b/c E talks about the sample size while the argument concerns with ADDITIONAL CRIMES.
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Mar 2017
Posts: 422
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Organizational Behavior
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under [#permalink]

Show Tags

Updated on: 01 Dec 2017, 03:55
StudentHaas wrote:
Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under routine supervision. A recent program has allowed criminals to leave prison early under intensive supervision; they must obey curfews and in some cases they must be electronically monitored. The percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision, so intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

(A) The criminals under intensive supervision, but not those under routine supervision, were required to work or attend school during their supervision period.

(B) All of the criminals who were arrested while under routine supervision had been in prison more than once before being paroled and put under supervision.

(C) The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under routine supervision.

(D) Of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have committed crimes if they had been under routine supervision.

(E) The number of criminals put under routine supervision was not significantly greater than the number of criminals put under intensive supervision.

I have doubt regarding option D, it says that "of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have commited crime if they had been under routine supervision", if we negate it , it becomes, "of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would have commited crime if they had been under routine supervision". I was wondering doesn't it kills the conclusion that intensive supervision is no more effective

"The percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision, so intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes. "

The conclusion that ISV is no more effective than RSV is based on the percentage of released criminals arrested and NOT their likelihood of committing crimes in ISV or RSV.
D is a good trap choice where the actual basis of conclusion is not at all discussed and the blame is put on the likelihood of committing crimes. Note that in the premise, 'likelihood of committing crimes' is nowhere discussed. The correct choice must talk about the percentage or ratio or proportion of the criminals in either of the cases.
_________________

------------------------------
"Trust the timing of your life"
Hit Kudus if this has helped you get closer to your goal, and also to assist others save time. Tq

Originally posted by TaN1213 on 30 Nov 2017, 00:41.
Last edited by TaN1213 on 01 Dec 2017, 03:55, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 10 Sep 2015
Posts: 59
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Human Resources
GMAT 1: 640 Q47 V31
GPA: 4
Re: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Nov 2017, 12:53
How to eliminate D???
i think negating D will weaken the argument
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8100
Location: Pune, India
Re: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under [#permalink]

Show Tags

01 Dec 2017, 01:25
asthagupta wrote:
How to eliminate D???
i think negating D will weaken the argument

Note the gap in logic of the argument. It says that percentage of re-arrests are the same and concludes that percentage of crimes committed is the same too. But that may not be the case. It is possible that under intensive supervision, fewer people are able to get away with committing crime. (C) focusses on this exact thing.

(D) doesn't have any relevance.
Of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have committed crimes if they had been under routine supervision.
We don't need to assume that some would not have committed crimes if they had been under routine supervision. Even if they had committed, it is possible that others who did commit, would not have committed under routine supervision and hence percentage of crimes committed would have remained the same.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Joined: 09 Oct 2015
Posts: 102
Re: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under [#permalink]

Show Tags

01 Dec 2017, 02:50
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
souvik101990 wrote:
Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under routine supervision. A recent program has allowed criminals to leave prison early under intensive supervision; they must obey curfews and in some cases they must be electronically monitored. The percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision, so intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

(A) The criminals under intensive supervision, but not those under routine supervision, were required to work or attend school during their supervision period.

(B) All of the criminals who were arrested while under routine supervision had been in prison more than once before being paroled and put under supervision.

(C) The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under routine supervision.

(D) Of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have committed crimes if they had been under routine supervision.

(E) The number of criminals put under routine supervision was not significantly greater than the number of criminals put under intensive supervision.

Responding to a pm:

Premises:
Criminals released on parole are put under routine supervision.
A recent program allows criminals to leave prison early under intensive supervision;
The percentage of re-arrests is same for intensive supervision as well as for routine supervision.

Conclusion:
intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes

The key word is highlighted. We are saying that since both types of supervision result in the same percentage of re-arrests, it means both have the same success rate in preventing crimes. There is a gap in this logic. Based on the number of re-arrests (which is same for both), we are assuming the number of crimes committed are the same under both types of supervision. What if, number of crimes committed is much higher under routine supervision but re-arrests are rarer? Then can we say that both methods are equally effective in preventing crimes? No. So option (C) is an assumption. It says that the proportion of arrests to crimes committed was similar in both.

On the other hand, (E) doesn't affect our argument. The number put under each is of no consequence to us. We are comparing percentages. Since their percentages are similar, we can certainly compare their effectiveness even if the number of criminals is different.

Hi,

In the part that i have highlighted from your reply, how can you assume that the NUMBER of re-arrests are the same? it says the percentage of the re-arrests are the same. It could be the case that the number of re-arrests is same, but it could also be the case that it is different.
Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2016
Posts: 73
Location: Pakistan
Concentration: Finance, Technology
Schools: CBS '20
GMAT 1: 640 Q43 V35
Re: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Dec 2017, 01:40
Chose (C). There were subtle differences -routine supervision and intensive supervision.
CONCLUSION- intensive supervision is useless.
Reason:Since total number of arrests were the same

This would break apart if we are able to show that arrest were the same. But since intensive is more supervised the criminal's arrest to crime committed ratio was high. In routine supervision you did not arrest every time a violation was made. This must be the assumption to hold the argument.
_________________

If you must err, err on the side of hope.

Re: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under   [#permalink] 07 Dec 2017, 01:40

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 37 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by