Last visit was: 07 Sep 2026, 00:43 It is currently 07 Sep 2026, 00:43
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
605-655 (Medium)|   Weaken|               
User avatar
Elite097
User avatar
Joined: 20 Apr 2022
Last visit: 08 May 2026
Posts: 731
Own Kudos:
577
 [1]
Given Kudos: 337
Location: India
Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27
GPA: 3.64
Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27
Posts: 731
Kudos: 577
 [1]
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite fo 24 Jun 2022, 22:30
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ThatDudeKnows since I understand E well and see some merit in it bein correct after getting it wrong, I will take the challenge of telling you why it is wrong so we can go back to C.
Pasaage's conclusion is that it is foolish to hire more police and the premise is that they if they hire more police, they will have to take the burden of paying for additional costs that will come with catching and putting people in to the prison because more cops would mean more catching and hence the assumption is that more cops lead to more catching. E directly attacks that and says that more cops will not lead to more catching and prisons. and hence it is not foolish to hire more plice. I hope this aligns with you so can we please go back to C with the understanding I had given with numerical example ThatDudeKnows

PS I have used some short forms while explaining the scenario so please focus on my broader understanding.


ThatDudeKnows
Elite097
I think you did not follow my train of thought so let me clarify. It could be 50 or 100 to. That does not matter. Point is they already had 1000 and that was sufficient to accomodte police but not other employees. We do not know now whether they have another source of revenue too (in this case- reducing costs from other services). Now, in , we are told exactly this that getting funds for police would lead to reducing other services (which means we would get this additional amount of saving too whether it is 50 or 100 or 500 doesnt matter; all we care about is that we have this additional amount from savings too). So altogether we now have 1000 (Originally)+ 100 (from savings) and we already know 1000 is sufficient for the police so we can use this additional 100 for additional hires and hence it is not foolish after all to hire more. ThatDudeKnows

Answer choice C: Hiring more police is going to reduce other services.
Argument: Hiring more police is foolish.

Given those two sentences, the road to making C weaken requires at least one additional "if" assumption. You and I disagree, but let's say we don't. Let's say C weakens. The question asks us which answer choice will most seriously weaken.

Per E, we have the money to hire the police, and hiring the police will be a deterrent on crime such that we may have no (or at least less than usual) additional court or prison expense. Wouldn't that make hiring the police a good thing, not "foolish?" Tell me why you eliminated E. If you do a good job with that, we can come back to C. ;)

The biggest take-away here is probably that if you find yourself needing to tell a long story to get to your answer choice, especially if you have an "if" in your story and ESPECIALLY if you have more than one "if," odds are that you've got the wrong answer choice.
Show more
User avatar
Elite097
User avatar
Joined: 20 Apr 2022
Last visit: 08 May 2026
Posts: 731
Own Kudos:
577
Given Kudos: 337
Location: India
Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27
GPA: 3.64
Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27
Posts: 731
Kudos: 577
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite fo Updated on: 24 Jun 2022, 23:11
Originally posted by Elite097 on 24 Jun 2022, 22:45.
Last edited by Elite097 on 24 Jun 2022, 23:11, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman
Thanks. Are you saying that C is saying that IN ORDER TO pay for the additional police officers, the other services will have to be reduced to be able to pay for these police staff and hence reducing other services will not lead to saving money. So given my previous example of 1000 and 500, are we saying that money for these police officers (1000) was not already sufficient from beforehand but IN ORDER TO pay them, we would have to reduce the other services so we are foolish after all? Earlier I had interpreted like we already have 1000 to pay these officers and that the saving will lead to additional 500, let's say, and that won't make our plan foolish. So is my understanding wrong because "will have to reduce" means that they will need to reduce funding of other services to pay for the officers and I interpreted it wrongly as they can reduce other services which will lead to additional savings? So is it something to do with the meaning of tense 'will have to'? Will have to means they will have to do this before using the budget for police officers and not that once budget is approved, this will purposely reduce savings for other services?

avigutman
Elite097
I am not sure what you used as a reason to think of it as a strengthener. Probably I am missing some details in what you wrote so if it is something with the verb or sequencing it might help if yu state it explicitly.
No problem, Elite097, I will try again.
Quote:
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
This is an 'if' statement. What it tells us is that the proposal is even more foolish than we originally thought: it's not just that we won't be able to afford the salaries of additional court and prison employees... On top of that, we will have to reduce support for other city services.
I believe your confusion comes from a misinterpretation of what answer choice (C) is saying.
I think you're interpreting it in the following way:
(C) if funding for the new police officers' salaries is approved, the city will be able to reduce its spending on other city services during the next fiscal year.
Do you see the subtle difference? If you indeed had this interpretation in mind, you probably figured that thanks to the extra cops, we can save money in other areas, and use the savings as we see fit.
Show more
User avatar
ThatDudeKnows
User avatar
Joined: 11 May 2022
Last visit: 27 Jun 2024
Posts: 1,070
Own Kudos:
1,069
 [1]
Given Kudos: 79
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,070
Kudos: 1,069
 [1]
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite fo 24 Jun 2022, 22:47
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Elite097
avigutman
Thanks. Are you saying that C is saying that IN ORDER TO pay for the additional police officers, the other services will have to be reduced to be able to pay for these police staff and hence reducing other services will not lead to saving money. So given my previous example of 1000 and 500, are we saying that money for these police officers (1000) was not already sufficient from beforehand but IN ORDER TO pay them, we would have to reduce the other services so we are foolish after all? Earlier I had interpreted like we already have 1000 to pay these officers and that the saving will lead to additional 500, let's say, and that won't make our plan foolish. So is my understanding wrong because "will have to reduce" means that they will need to reduce funding of other services to pay for the officers and I interpreted it wrongly as they can reduce other services which will lead to additional savings?

avigutman
Elite097
I am not sure what you used as a reason to think of it as a strengthener. Probably I am missing some details in what you wrote so if it is something with the verb or sequencing it might help if yu state it explicitly.
No problem, Elite097, I will try again.
Quote:
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
This is an 'if' statement. What it tells us is that the proposal is even more foolish than we originally thought: it's not just that we won't be able to afford the salaries of additional court and prison employees... On top of that, we will have to reduce support for other city services.
I believe your confusion comes from a misinterpretation of what answer choice (C) is saying.
I think you're interpreting it in the following way:
(C) if funding for the new police officers' salaries is approved, the city will be able to reduce its spending on other city services during the next fiscal year.
Do you see the subtle difference? If you indeed had this interpretation in mind, you probably figured that thanks to the extra cops, we can save money in other areas, and use the savings as we see fit.
Show more


There you go! Avi phrased it well in his last post.
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 27 Jun 2026
Posts: 1,285
Own Kudos:
919
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,285
Kudos: 919
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite fo 25 Jun 2022, 03:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Elite097
Are you saying that C is saying that IN ORDER TO pay for the additional police officers, the other services will have to be reduced to be able to pay for these police staff and hence reducing other services will not lead to saving money. So given my previous example of 1000 and 500, are we saying that money for these police officers (1000) was not already sufficient from beforehand but IN ORDER TO pay them, we would have to reduce the other services so we are foolish after all? Earlier I had interpreted like we already have 1000 to pay these officers and that the saving will lead to additional 500, let's say, and that won't make our plan foolish. So is my understanding wrong because "will have to reduce" means that they will need to reduce funding of other services to pay for the officers and I interpreted it wrongly as they can reduce other services which will lead to additional savings? So is it something to do with the meaning of tense 'will have to'? Will have to means they will have to do this before using the budget for police officers and not that once budget is approved, this will purposely reduce savings for other services?
Show more
Yes, Elite097. I want to make sure that you can apply this lesson to other problems in the future, so let's focus on the general structure of answer choice (C):
Quote:
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
If X happens, Y will have to happen
Show more
See if you can pick out which of the following sentences match this structure, and what makes them different from the ones that don't:
(A) If I win the lottery, I will buy a private jet.
(B) If I lose my voice, I will have to stop singing.
(C) If I crash my car, I will have to walk to work.
(D) If I crash my car, the insurance company will buy me a new one.
User avatar
Elite097
User avatar
Joined: 20 Apr 2022
Last visit: 08 May 2026
Posts: 731
Own Kudos:
577
Given Kudos: 337
Location: India
Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27
GPA: 3.64
Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27
Posts: 731
Kudos: 577
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite fo 25 Jun 2022, 04:41
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman

Yes, Elite097. I want to make sure that you can apply this lesson to other problems in the future, so let's focus on the general structure of answer choice (C):
Quote:
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
If X happens, Y will have to happen
See if you can pick out which of the following sentences match this structure, and what makes them different from the ones that don't:
(A) If I win the lottery, I will buy a private jet-----If X happens, Y will be able to happen ( not similar)
(B) If I lose my voice, I will have to stop singing.--- If X happens, I will be forced to do Y (similar)
(C) If I crash my car, I will have to walk to work. ------If X happens, I will be forced to do Y (similar)
(D) If I crash my car, the insurance company will buy me a new one.-----If X happens, Y will be able to happen ( not similar)
Show more

The difference is that in 2 of those cases, the outcome is necessary but in 2 of them, the outcome is possible.
Hence, if the budget is approved, I will be forced to reduce spending on other services to allocate it to police officers so BASICALLY THE FUNDING WILL ACTUALLY GO FROM THE OTHER REDUCED SERVICES' SAVINGS. Without cutting the other services, I will not be able to pay for the police officers. And it does not mean that if the budget is approved, I will be able to reduce other services and increase saving. Pls correct me avigutman
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 27 Jun 2026
Posts: 1,285
Own Kudos:
919
 [1]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,285
Kudos: 919
 [1]
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite fo 25 Jun 2022, 05:16
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Elite097
avigutman

Yes, Elite097. I want to make sure that you can apply this lesson to other problems in the future, so let's focus on the general structure of answer choice (C):
Quote:
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
If X happens, Y will have to happen
See if you can pick out which of the following sentences match this structure, and what makes them different from the ones that don't:
(A) If I win the lottery, I will buy a private jet-----If X happens, Y will be able to happen ( not similar)
(B) If I lose my voice, I will have to stop singing.--- If X happens, I will be forced to do Y (similar)
(C) If I crash my car, I will have to walk to work. ------If X happens, I will be forced to do Y (similar)
(D) If I crash my car, the insurance company will buy me a new one.-----If X happens, Y will be able to happen ( not similar)

The difference is that in 2 of those cases, the outcome is necessary but in 2 of them, the outcome is possible.
Hence, if the budget is approved, I will be forced to reduce spending on other services to allocate it to police officers so BASICALLY THE FUNDING WILL ACTUALLY GO FROM THE OTHER REDUCED SERVICES' SAVINGS. Without cutting the other services, I will not be able to pay for the police officers. And it does not mean that if the budget is approved, I will be able to reduce other services and increase saving. Pls correct me avigutman
Show more

You got it now, Elite097.
User avatar
PeanutButter429
User avatar
Joined: 18 Feb 2025
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 24
Own Kudos:
7
Given Kudos: 14
Posts: 24
Kudos: 7
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite fo 21 Jul 2026, 03:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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

Does that not mean any further increase would be foolish? IMO
User avatar
guddo
User avatar
Joined: 25 May 2021
Last visit: 07 Sep 2026
Posts: 1,831
Own Kudos:
14,408
 [1]
Given Kudos: 32
Posts: 1,831
Kudos: 14,408
 [1]
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite fo 21 Jul 2026, 07:30
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
PeanutButter429
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

Does that not mean any further increase would be foolish? IMO
Show more

I’d say no. Here, “has reached a level” means Middletown is now at the point where adding more officers will deter crime.

So the added officers may reduce crime, which means fewer arrests and convictions may be needed, not more. That directly weakens the argument’s concern about an increased caseload.

It does not mean further increase is foolish; it means further increase may finally be effective.
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 07 Sep 2026
Posts: 6,291
Own Kudos:
33,902
Given Kudos: 716
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 6,291
Kudos: 33,902
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite fo 21 Jul 2026, 10:18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi PeanutButter429,

I can see exactly where this is going sideways, and it's a really natural reading. You're treating the argument as if it's about having too many officers, so that E's "deterrent" line sounds like a reason to say "enough already, don't add more."

But look again at why the author calls the hire foolish. The reason isn't overstaffing - it's money:

"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."

So the whole argument rests on one assumption: more officers -> more arrests/convictions -> a bigger caseload the city can't afford to process.

Now read E for what it actually says. A "deterrent effect on crime" means crime goes down - a deterrent is something that stops crime from happening. So:

- More officers -> crime is deterred -> fewer crimes
- Fewer crimes -> fewer arrests and convictions
- Fewer arrests/convictions -> no flood of extra court/prison work -> the funding shortfall the author worried about never materializes

That directly knocks out the argument's core assumption, so the hire isn't foolish after all. That's a weakener, which is what the question asks for.

The trap in your reading is turning "an increase will deter crime" into "we already have enough, so more is excessive." But the argument never worried about excess officers - it worried about excess caseload. E removes exactly that worry.

Quick way to feel it: imagine E instead said "an increase in officers will have no effect on crime." Then caseloads still climb, the funding problem stays, and the hire really would look foolish. The word "deterrent" is doing all the work - flip it and the whole effect flips with it.

Answer: E

PeanutButter429
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

Does that not mean any further increase would be foolish? IMO
Show more
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
AbhishekP220108
Verbal Forum Moderator
705 posts