This year, Town Y tested a new crime prevention strategy, whereas Town Z did not. Two criminology experts debate the strategy's effectiveness. Expert A: Town Y's number of crime incidents decreased after Y applied the new strategy. Clearly, that strategy addresses the problem of crime effectively. Expert B: The strategy that Y adopted does not address crime, since in the period after applying the strategy, Y experienced double the number of crime incidents as did Town Z. Determine which statement, if true, most strongly Challenges Expert B's argument and determine which statement, if true, most strongly Supports Expert A's argument. Make only two selections, one in each column.

Challenges Expert B: The population of Town Y is three times as great as the population of Town Z. -> Absolute numbers not representative of increase/decrease of crimes Supports Expert A: Next year, the number of crimes committed in Town Y is expected to double, and the number of crimes committed in Town Z is expected to more than double. -> Strategy of Town Y works

Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 18:32

It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 18:32

LHE

Joined: 26 Feb 2021

Last visit: 10 Jun 2021

Posts: 9

Own Kudos:

Posts: 9

Kudos: 6

17 May 2021, 18:02

Kudos

Bookmarks

Hi Sajjad,

Could you post the explanation here?

Thanks.

Sajjad1994

GRE Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Nov 2016

Last visit: 18 Nov 2025

Posts: 17,289

Own Kudos:

49,291

Given Kudos: 6,179

GPA: 3.62

Products:

Posts: 17,289

Kudos: 49,291

18 May 2021, 01:39

Kudos

Bookmarks

Official Explanation

Analyze the information

Town Y, but not Town Z, applied a new crime prevention strategy, and Experts A and B have different opinions about the strategy's effectiveness. You must determine which statement would weaken Expert B's argument and which would strengthen Expert A's argument. Before evaluating the statements for their effect on the arguments, make sure you understand the arguments.

Expert A argues that the strategy was effective. This expert relies on the evidence that the number of incidents dropped after the strategy was implemented.

Expert B argues that the strategy was not effective. This argument rests on the evidence that there were twice as many crimes in Town Y as in Town Z.

Approach strategically

To strengthen or weaken a GMAT argument, identify the assumption(s) of that argument by looking for a gap between the evidence and the conclusion. Expert A moves from "crime dropped" to "it must have been due to the strategy." A major assumption here is that nothing else caused the reduction in crime. To strengthen this argument, look for a choice that rules out an alternate cause. The first statement, "A national economic upturn this year was associated with decreased crime, but Town Y's economy depends mostly on agriculture, which was hurt by bad weather," eliminates the possibility that crime dropped in Y because the economy improved and thus makes it more likely that the reduction in crime was due to the strategy. This is the answer for the second column.

Expert B raises a comparison that may be completely irrelevant. What's important to gauging the success of the strategy is the effect it had on Town Y's crime. Now, if Town Y and Town Z are very similar in all key respects and Town Y's number of crimes stayed the same or went up relative to Z's, that would be convincing evidence that the strategy didn't work in Y. But Expert B does not establish that similarity. Thus, a major assumption of Expert B's argument is that the two towns are similar enough that comparing their number of crimes says something about crime in Y. To weaken this argument, look for a key difference between the towns that would provide another reason why the number of crimes in Y is greater. The second statement, "The population of Town Y is three times as great as the population of Town Z," weakens B's argument, since if the population is three times as great but there are only twice the number of crimes, Town Y might be doing something right. This is the answer for the first column.

If anything, the third statement about data collection methods strengthens Expert B's argument, since it means essentially that apples are being compared to apples. The fourth statement, a prediction about future crime rates, has no bearing on the conclusions about what happened this year; for example, maybe a new law is about to go into effect that will criminalize behavior that's more prevalent in Town Z, but that doesn't mean the strategy in Town Y was or was not effective this year. Since the goal of the strategy is simply given as "crime prevention" and nothing is said about whether it's supposed to change the proportion of violent crimes, the last choice is another irrelevant comparison.

The correct answers are these:

Supports Expert A: A national economic upturn this year was associated with decreased crime, but Town Y's economy depends mostly on agriculture, which was hurt by bad weather.

Challenges Expert B: The population of Town Y is three times as great as the population of Town Z.

TAKEAWAY: As you do on Critical Reasoning questions in the Verbal section, to strengthen or weaken an argument in Two-Part Analysis, start by identifying the assumption(s) that argument makes. Then consider what kind of new information would make that assumption more or less likely to be true.

bumpbot

Non-Human User

Joined: 09 Sep 2013

Last visit: 04 Jan 2021

Posts: 38,588

Own Kudos:

1,079

Posts: 38,588

Kudos: 1,079

19 May 2024, 03:29

Kudos

Bookmarks

Hello from the GMAT Club BumpBot!

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.

Moderators:

Bunuel

Math Expert

105355 posts

kingbucky

496 posts

Prep Toolkit

Announcements

Master in Management, Finance, Business Analytics and more Master’s Programs!

Solving 705+ Level MSR Questions with Data Synthesis Skils

Tuesday, Nov 18, 2025
10:30am NY / 3:30pm London / 9pm Mumbai

Live Profile Evaluation Chat Session with ARINGO

Wednesday, November 19, 2025
09:00 am PDT | 10:30 pm IST
Location: GMAT Club Chat

Top GMAT Focus Debriefs

This year, Town Y tested a new crime prevention strategy, whereas Town

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

Challenges Expert B	Supports Expert A
		A national economic upturn this year was associated with decreased crime, but Town Y's economy depends mostly on agriculture, which was hurt by bad weather.
		The population of Town Y is three times as great as the population of Town Z.
		At the beginning of the year, Town Z changed its method of collecting crime incident data to be the same as that used by Town Y.
		Next year, the number of crimes committed in Town Y is expected to double, and the number of crimes committed in Town Z is expected to more than double.
		Since Town Y implemented the new strategy, a majority of that town's crimes have been violent crimes, while a majority of the crimes in Town Z have been nonviolent crimes.

GMAT Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions

This year, Town Y tested a new crime prevention strategy, whereas Town

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards