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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
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
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.
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
0%
(00:00)
correct 100%
(00:56)
wrong
based on 6
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents) in Meadowbrook is 60 percent higher now than it was four years ago. The corresponding increase for Parkdale is only 10 percent. These figures support the conclusion that residents of Meadowbrook are more likely to become victims of violent crime than are residents of Parkdale.
The argument above is flawed because it fails to take into account
A. changes in the population density of both Parkdale and Meadowbrook over the past four years
B. how the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale
C. the ratio of violent to nonviolent crimes committed during the past four years in Meadowbrook and Parkdale
D. the violent crime rates in Meadowbrook and Parkdale four years ago
E. how Meadowbrook’s expenditures for crime prevention over the past four years compare to Parkdale’s expenditures
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Hey Guys,
I have a question. In the arguments it states in parathesis " (number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents)" - Doesn't this refer to Meadowbrook only? Or to Parkdale as well?
I will go with B. Only the rate of population growth is important here. If the population growth is Parkdale was much higher than Meadowbrook, it can explain why the crime rate is low.
The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents) in Meadowbrook is 60 percent higher now than it was four years ago. The corresponding increase for Parkdale is only 10 percent. These figures support the conclusion that residents of Meadowbrook are more likely to become victims of violent crime than are residents of Parkdale.
The argument above is flawed because it fails to take into account A. changes in the population density of both Parkdale and Meadowbrook over the past four years B. how the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale C. the ratio of violent to nonviolent crimes committed during the past four years in Meadowbrook and Parkdale D. the violent crime rates in Meadowbrook and Parkdale four years ago E. how Meadowbrook’s expenditures for crime prevention over the past four years compare to Parkdale’s expenditures
Show more
Definitely D.
Comparing increase in crime rate for two cities cannot be possible without knowing previous rate.
Consider:
If Meadowbrook's previous rate was 1, 60% increase would be 1.6 now.
If Parkdale previous rate was 10, 10% increase would be 11 now.
If you change the previous rate around, you get different results.
Definitely D. Comparing increase in crime rate for two cities cannot be possible without knowing previous rate.
Consider: If Meadowbrook's previous rate was 1, 60% increase would be 1.6 now. If Parkdale previous rate was 10, 10% increase would be 11 now. If you change the previous rate around, you get different results.
Asaf, I highly recommend you read this post by bkk145. His answer is perfect.
bkk145
Definitely D. Comparing increase in crime rate for two cities cannot be possible without knowing previous rate.
Consider: If Meadowbrook's previous rate was 1, 60% increase would be 1.6 now. If Parkdale previous rate was 10, 10% increase would be 11 now. If you change the previous rate around, you get different results.
Asaf, I highly recommend you read this post by bkk145. His answer is perfect.
bkk145
Definitely D. Comparing increase in crime rate for two cities cannot be possible without knowing previous rate.
Consider: If Meadowbrook's previous rate was 1, 60% increase would be 1.6 now. If Parkdale previous rate was 10, 10% increase would be 11 now. If you change the previous rate around, you get different results.
Show more
Got it! Thanks bkk145 and solidcolor!
I think key is what is given in parentheses 'crimes per thousand people'.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.