The cities with the densest population have the highest ratio of polic

"The cities with the densest population have the highest ratio of police officers to citizens. Such cities also have the lowest rates of property crime without contact between perpetrator and victim. Thus maintaining a high ratio of police officers to citizens can serve as an effective deterrent to at least certain kinds of property crime.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

(A) The quality of training that police receive varies from city to city.
(B) High population density itself makes it difficult to commit a property crime that involves no contact between perpetrator and victim.
(C) Many nonviolent crimes in large cities are drug-related.
(D) A majority of the perpetrators of property crimes in densely populated cities are not apprehended by the police.
(E) Property crimes without contact between perpetrator and victim represent only a small proportion of overall crime."


The premise mentions that cities with densest population have highest ratio of police to citizen ratio. They also happen to have the lowest rates of a certain type of property crime (i.e. without contact between victim and perpetrator).

The conclusion then stretches ahead to say that the high police to citizen ratio serves as a deterrent to atleast certain kinds of property crimes.

What is the logical gap required for this conclusion to hold true? or rather in what condition will this falsify? i.e. High police ratio may not serve as a deterrent? What if there is another cause governing the low property crime rate w/o contact between victim and perpetrator? Perhaps the citizens are active? or the laws are strict? or the punishments are severe?

So for the conclusion to hold true, we need to fill this gap by assuming that there is no other cause other than the high police to citizen ratio which leads to this low property crime rate (w/o contact between victim and perpetrator)

To weaken this we need to break this causal relation. Cause (high police ratio)---> low property crime rates (w/o contact between victim and perpetrator).

A) The quality of training that police receive varies from city to city. So what? Can the high police ratio still lead to the effect? Possible !
(B) High population density itself makes it difficult to commit a property crime that involves no contact between perpetrator and victim. Yes by changing the cause- it breaks the causal relation.
(C) Many nonviolent crimes in large cities are drug-related. OFS- The argument is about deterring atleast certain property crimes.
(D) A majority of the perpetrators of property crimes in densely populated cities are not apprehended by the police.- OFS- the majority may not be concerned with this certain type of property crime.
(E) Property crimes without contact between perpetrator and victim represent only a small proportion of overall crime- Even if they do, how are we addressing the conclusion that high police to citizen ratio is at play ?

Correct Ans is B