Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
01 Jul 2024, 10:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
The argument relies on the assumption that the proportion of arrests to crimes committed is not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under routine supervision (C).
The argument concludes that because the arrest rates are the same, intensive supervision is no more effective at preventing criminals from committing crimes. However, it's possible that criminals under intensive supervision are actually committing crimes at a higher rate, but the extra supervision is also leading to more arrests of these criminals.
The argument concludes that because the arrest rates are the same, intensive supervision is no more effective at preventing criminals from committing crimes. However, it's possible that criminals under intensive supervision are actually committing crimes at a higher rate, but the extra supervision is also leading to more arrests of these criminals.
14 Jul 2024, 10:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
Understanding the argument -
Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under routine supervision. - Background Info.
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. - Background Info.
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. - Meaning 10 out of 100 intensive (10%) supervision criminals are arrested, which is the same as, say, 100 out of 1000 (10%) under regular supervision. In conclusion, if the percentage of arrests is the same, intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes. - The conclusion is about crimes. What if,
say - 10 crimes were committed in the intensive supervision case, and all 10 were arrested? While in the routine supervision case, 900 crimes were committed, but only 100 were arrested. Isn't intensive supervision more effective? Absolutely.
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. - the criminal history is out of scope.
(C) The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under routine supervision. - ok. Negation will shatter the conclusion.
(D) Of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have committed crimes if they had been under routine supervision. - hypothetical scenario. out of scope.
(E) The number of criminals put under routine supervision was not significantly greater than the number of criminals put under intensive supervision.- Irrelevant as we are comparing the percentages between the two in the argument.
Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under routine supervision. - Background Info.
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. - Background Info.
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. - Meaning 10 out of 100 intensive (10%) supervision criminals are arrested, which is the same as, say, 100 out of 1000 (10%) under regular supervision. In conclusion, if the percentage of arrests is the same, intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes. - The conclusion is about crimes. What if,
say - 10 crimes were committed in the intensive supervision case, and all 10 were arrested? While in the routine supervision case, 900 crimes were committed, but only 100 were arrested. Isn't intensive supervision more effective? Absolutely.
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. - the criminal history is out of scope.
(C) The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under routine supervision. - ok. Negation will shatter the conclusion.
(D) Of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have committed crimes if they had been under routine supervision. - hypothetical scenario. out of scope.
(E) The number of criminals put under routine supervision was not significantly greater than the number of criminals put under intensive supervision.- Irrelevant as we are comparing the percentages between the two in the argument.
22 Aug 2025, 22:56
Kudos
Bookmarks
Let me give my 2 cents on it
A cannot be the answer because who cares they went to school or not, guy could have stolen from there as well
B cannot be the right because first of all the word all and rest is irrelevant
C IS THE CORRECT answer because it is possible that under routine supervison the number of arrests was a lot more than actual crimes thus efficiency cannot be said to be same, also negating would lead us to convert no to some
D is wrong irrelevant we do not care if they committed crime or not
E we are talking about percentage actual numbers do not matter
souvik101990
A cannot be the answer because who cares they went to school or not, guy could have stolen from there as well
B cannot be the right because first of all the word all and rest is irrelevant
C IS THE CORRECT answer because it is possible that under routine supervison the number of arrests was a lot more than actual crimes thus efficiency cannot be said to be same, also negating would lead us to convert no to some
D is wrong irrelevant we do not care if they committed crime or not
E we are talking about percentage actual numbers do not matter
