Reformer: A survey of police departments keeps track of the nationa

IMO,POE as follows
Conclusion :This demonstrates that putting more people in prison cannot help to reduce crime.


(A) infers without justification that because of the national crime rate has increased, the number of crimes reported by each police department has increased : "each police department" (?)..no relevancy to conclusion

(B) ignores the possibility that the crime rate would have significantly increased if it had not been for the greater rate of imprisonment : This seems logical, while reformer criticizes rate of imprisonment has increased. he could be forgetting to notice that without it crime rate would have been greater.
seems like normal scenario, where we criticize certain think a little too much that we forget to see bright side it offers. Keep B.

(C) overlooks the possibility that the population has increased significantly over the past 20 years
.Author has given crime rate per 10000 people. so population increase is well accounted in new rate. C is out rate. C is out[/color]

(D) presumes, without providing a warrant, that alternative measures for reducing crime would be more effective than imprisonment : No, we dont really care about alternative measures. D is out.

(E) takes for granted that the number of prisoners must be proportional to the number of crimes committed : This seems like contender to me.
but after analyzing, author is saying crime rate has reduced a little. but he doesn't expect imprisonment to be in proportion. from where we can get this?
because author says "imprisonment has significantly increased". he is not taking it for granted. he is concerned about significant increase. Hence E is out.


B must be the right answer!!

C (overlooks the possibility that the population has increased significantly over the past 20 years). It does not indicate a flaw. It simply points that greater number in crime is directly proportional to the increase in population.
old population 10 no of crime 2
new population 100 no of crim 20.
it is just a statement whereas B states that out of these 20 people if 18 are in jail. (suppose initially ) 1 was in jail. These 18 in jail help preventing the increase in the ratio.

Hope it helps

No...C does explain the entire argument perfectly.It also explains why the conclusion “putting more people in jail cant reduce crimes” is incorrect.C is basically saying = more people are put in jail because of population increase & not to reduce the crime rate.How can this not indicate a flaw...?

Some expert needs to chip in.I would prefer GMATNINJA since this is from an official source...

Posted from my mobile device

have not been able to discard "E" which was my answer. the conclusion is though the crime rate has not increased , more ppl are being put in prison and thereby concludes that more people being put in prison will not help reduce crime........in his leap to the conclude , he must have taken for granted that number of prisoners should directly correlate to number of crimes.......

have not been able to discard "E" which was my answer. the conclusion is though the crime rate has not increased , more ppl are being put in prison and thereby concludes that more people being put in prison will not help reduce crime........in his leap to the conclude , he must have taken for granted that number of prisoners should directly correlate to number of crimes.......this includes the situation in which population may have increased .....not reducing the crime rate

KarishmaB GMATNinja why is option E wrong?

Posted from my mobile device

­Answer here is (B) only. 

Premises: 
National crime rate - annual number of crimes per 100,000 people.
Survey shows no significant reduction in the crime rate in the past 20 years (say it was 1% i.e. 1000 crimes per 100,000 people and still is the same)
Percentage of the population in prison has increased substantially (Say if .2% people (200) were in prison before, now .5% are (500))
(Assume the population to be the same in both cases because we are dealing with just percentages)

Conclusion: Putting more people in prison cannot help to reduce crime.

Reformer says that even though a higher proportion of the population is in prison, crime is still the same. So putting people in prison does not reduce crime. 

What is the flaw here? What would the crime rate be if people were not put in prison? Perhaps putting people in prison is a deterrent. What if the availability of resources is reducing which is making people more prone to criminal activity? But still the crime rate has been maintained at the same 1%. The author is ignoring this possibility (not certainty, just that this is a possibility too and has he considered it?)
That is why (B) is correct. 

(A) infers without justification that because of the national crime rate has increased, the number of crimes reported by each police department has increased

Incorrect. The national crime rate has remained same. Ignore. 

(C) overlooks the possibility that the population has increased significantly over the past 20 years

We are talking only about percentages (rate) not the actual numbers. The crime rate is calculated as crimes per 100,000 people. We are not discussing the absolute number of crimes. Hence actual increase in population is irrelevant. Even if population has doubled, the number of crimes would have doubled too to keep the rate same. 

(D) presumes, without providing a warrant, that alternative measures for reducing crime would be more effective than imprisonment

He doesn't say that alternative measure would be more effective. Incorrect. 

(E) takes for granted that the number of prisoners must be proportional to the number of crimes committed

He does not assume that "number of prisoners must be proportional to the number of crimes committed". He says that crime rate has stayed the same and number of prisoners has increased. Look at our figures above. Crime rate is still 1% but number of prisoners has gone up from .2% to .5%.
His entire argument is that though number of prisoners has increased, the number of crimes committed are still the same. 
Hence this is incorrect.

You are likely confusing it with this logic: Crime rate has remained the same but the police has become more effective and that is why more people are caught by them and put in prison. Note that this is also not the flaw. The author is agreeing with it. His problem is that if the police is becoming more effective and catching more criminals and punishing them, still why isn't prison a deterrent for people? Why are still the same number of crimes committed? Hence putting people in prison isn't helping reduce crime. 

Answer (B)
 ­
avikroy sayan640

My only issue with B is without crime how PPL end up in prison. Hence if PPL in prison they must commit crime. Hence increase in crime rate

Posted from my mobile device