It is currently 26 Jun 2017, 19:09

### 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

# The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Joined: 06 May 2013
Posts: 97
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35
GMAT 2: 730 Q49 V40
GPA: 2.8
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jul 2013, 04:24
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite foolish. There is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers, but not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate.

Which of the following, if true, will most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?

(A) Studies have shown that an increase in a city’s police force does not necessarily reduce crime.
(B) When one major city increased its police force by 19 percent last year, there were 40 percent more arrests and 13 percent more convictions.
(C) If funding for the new police officers’ salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year.
(D) In most United States cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms.
(E) Middletown’s ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime.

Last edited by Narenn on 10 Jul 2013, 07:05, edited 1 time in total.
Merging Similar Topics.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1127
Location: United States
Re: The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jul 2013, 12:19
1
KUDOS
nikhil.jones.s wrote:
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite foolish. There is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers, but not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate.

Which of the following, if true, will most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?

(A) Studies have shown that an increase in a city’s police force does not necessarily reduce crime.
(B) When one major city increased its police force by 19 percent last year, there were 40 percent more arrests and 13 percent more convictions.
(C) If funding for the new police officers’ salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year.
(D) In most United States cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms.
(E) Middletown’s ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime.

ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

Fact: There is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers,
Fact: But not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate
Conclusion: Middletown should not hire more police officers.

In weaken questions, you will see "qualified conclusions" very often. What is "qualified conclusion"?. A qualified conclusion is a conclusion that will happen in a particular condition. To weaken this conclusion, just show that particular condition will not happen, or does not exist ==> The conclusion fails.

Apply to this question. The conclusion is based on the assumption: the more police officers, the more convictions. If you can show this assumption is weak --> More police officers, NOT more convictions. ==> The conclusion will be weaken.

(A) Studies have shown that an increase in a city’s police force does not necessarily reduce crime.
Wrong. It strengthen a conclusion --> wrong.

(B) When one major city increased its police force by 19 percent last year, there were 40 percent more arrests and 13 percent more convictions.
Wrong. It strengthen a conclusion --> wrong.

(C) If funding for the new police officers’ salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year.
Wrong. Out of scope. Nothing about "other services".

(D) In most United States cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms.
Wrong. SHELL GAME.
(1) "In most U.S cities" does not mean "in Middletown". There is a possibility that "more police officers, more convictions in Middletown" --> D is wrong.
(2) Always aware of "extreme" words in GMAT such as: Most, Every, All, Always, Never, etc. Because the logic of GMAT is "nothing is the 100% correct, you should pick the best answer among all options". "Best" differs from "100% correct".

(E) Middletown’s ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime.
Correct. E shows that more police officers, NO more convictions ==> the city does not have to pay more for courts and prison employees.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 339
Re: The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2013, 01:51
you have to read D very carefully to be able to eliminate it. E is the right answer.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10157
Re: The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jan 2015, 05:38
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10157
Re: The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jul 2016, 06:15
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Math Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 1248
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2016, 11:31
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite foolish. There is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers, but not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate.

Type - weaken
Boil it down - The proposal to hire 10 new police officers is foolish .
- Although there is sufficient funding for new officer salaries , but not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process increase caseload of arrests

Pre-Thinking - Some reason due to which the caseload of arrests and convictions won't increase

Which of the following, if true, will most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
a. Studies had shown that an increase in city’s place force does not necessarily reduce crime - Incorrect
b. When one major city increased its police force by 19% last year, there were 40% more arrests and 13% more convictions - Incorrect - we don't know 10 is what percentage of workforce but we can infer that caseload of arrests and convictions will increase
c. If funding for the new police officers’ salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year - Irrelevant
d. In most US cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms - Incorrect as convictions and prison terms still might increase
e. Middletown’s ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime . Correct -
The new officers will have a deterrent effect on crime . So , no additional expenditure on support services will be needed

_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Manager
Joined: 26 Feb 2015
Posts: 111
GPA: 3.92
Re: The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2016, 16:43
When potential answers use phrases like "most" or "almost all", it is usually a sign of a trap answer.
Manager
Joined: 04 Aug 2015
Posts: 75
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q50 V25
GPA: 3.39
Re: The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2016, 19:14
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite foolish. There is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers, but not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate.

Which of the following, if true, will most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?

Structure: More cops --(1)--> More arrests and increased caseload --(2)--> Additional court and prison employees required and more salaries to be paid

To Weaken:
Linkage 1: More cops might not lead to increased number of arrests. Maybe crimes won't take place at the first place because of the increased number of cops.
Linkage 2: If the current workforce is able to handle the increased caseload then there won't be a requirement for an additional workforce.

a. Studies had shown that an increase in city’s place force does not necessarily reduce crime
Two situations stem from this point: (a) Crime rate remains same - in such a case no additional workforce is required. (b) Crime rate increases - in such a case an additional workforce might be required. Since we have both the possibilities, so not a strong option.
b. When one major city increased its police force by 19% last year, there were 40% more arrests and 13% more convictions
This point strengthens the Linkage 1 whereas we are here to weaken.
c. If funding for the new police officers’ salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year
Other city services - Out of Scope.
d. In most US cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms
Let's imagine two scenarios:
SC1: [Before the new cops are hired] Arrests: 100 Convictions: 99 (not all) Prison Terms: 98 (not all).
SC2: [After the new cops are hired] Arrests: 150 Convictions: 149 (not all) Prison Terms: 148 (not all).
Even though the condition of 'not all' is satisfied across the scenarios, we might have a case which strengthens the argument.

e. Middletown’s ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime
This point hits the Linkage 1. An increase in the number of cops WILL bring down the crime rate and, thus, won't lead to an increased workload.

Thus, I chose option E.
Manager
Joined: 15 Jun 2016
Posts: 64
Re: The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jan 2017, 05:50
I ma confused in option A and E, could you please explain?
Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3080
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jan 2017, 05:13
VKat wrote:
I ma confused in option A and E, could you please explain?

A and E states the opposite things.
A: increase in police force ---> no decrease in crime. Thus the argument is strengthened.
E: increase in police force ---> decrease in crime. Thus the argument is weakened.
Manager
Joined: 05 Dec 2016
Posts: 129
Re: The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2017, 07:04
A) Strengthen. If no reduction in crime then equal or increase.
B) Strengthen.
C) Out of scope.
D) Not all = 0-99%. So if 99% is true then argument's reasoning is still valid, hence incorrect.
E) Good one and correct. Additional police staff will not result in a sudden leap of arrests.
Manager
Joined: 08 Feb 2016
Posts: 72
Location: India
Concentration: Technology
Schools: ISB '18, IIMA , IIMC
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 4
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2017, 23:50
When potential answers use phrases like "most" or "almost all", it is usually a sign of a trap answer.

I disagree with this.
'Most' is greater than 50%. I can say it is 51% to 99%. Option D, IMHO, is not wrong because it uses 'most'. Option D is wrong because it uses 'not all'. 'Not all' may range from 0 % - 99%.
Not all may mean 0% arrests result In conviction, i.e. no arrests lead to conviction. If this is the case then this option definitely weakens. However, if it means 99% arrests result in conviction, then the argument is strengthened, not weakened. Thus D is ambiguous because it uses ‘not all’ which has a variable effect on the argument.

Similarly, 'almost all' is close to 100%. It's quite different from 'not all'.

sayantanc2k - please correct me if I am wrong.
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown   [#permalink] 01 Jun 2017, 23:50

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 32 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Stoneville Council Member: The number of police officers per one thous 9 23 Jun 2017, 10:20
21 Over the last ten years, the Office of the Provost has 13 14 Oct 2016, 07:58
3 The proposal to hire twelve new fraud investigators in 8 02 Jun 2016, 01:21
1 Police officers in Smith County who receive Special Weapons 7 21 Jun 2017, 09:44
23 Editorial: An arrest made by a Midville police officer is pr 54 22 Dec 2016, 13:31
Display posts from previous: Sort by