GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 17 Jul 2018, 12:16

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Board of Directors
User avatar
G
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 3639
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
WE: Business Development (Commercial Banking)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Sep 2016, 11:19
nishant12600 wrote:

(C) a rise in violent crime and violence can be the result of the availability of firearms to ex-criminals

(D) most ex-criminals who purchase guns do so illegally

Please explain

VeritasPrepKarishma

I think both C and D strengthens the argument.
I m not being able to completely agree with any of the explanations in this thread.
Need expert opinion


IMHO the only contenders for this question are (C) and (E)


You can negate (D) , because to strengthen the conclusion we need to show that the proposed act of " passing new legislation banning the sell of handguns " will have the desired effect of " fewer violent crimes and safer inner-city communities."

(D) States that the ban will be ineffective since ex criminals will purchase guns illegally and thus incidents of violent crimes and safer inner-city communities will not be possible.

Whereas (C) states that the desired effect of fewer violent crimes and safer inner-city communities can be achieved by passing the new law, banning the sale of gunds and firearms..

_________________

Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

How to use Search Function in GMAT Club | Rules for Posting in QA forum | Writing Mathematical Formulas |Rules for Posting in VA forum | Request Expert's Reply ( VA Forum Only )

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2015
Posts: 41
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Oct 2016, 10:36
To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I propose that we pass new legislation banning the sell of handguns to anyone with criminal record. Such a law would require gun retailers to perform background checks on potential customers thereby lengthening the time needed to purchase a firearm while also keeping guns out of the hands of known ex-criminals. This proposal will result in fewer violent crimes and produce safer inner-city communities.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion above?

(A) the goal of gun control legislation is to reduce the number of easily accessible firearms

(B) ex-criminals who commit violent crimes generally do so with a firearm

(C) a rise in violent crime and violence can be the result of the availability of firearms to ex-criminals

(D) most ex-criminals who purchase guns do so illegally

(E) any legislation restricting gun sells to ex-criminals would result in a reduction of the number of firearms available in most inner cities


Violence has been rising in the inner cities.
It says that background verifications would make the process slower and also keep guns out of ex criminals.

Linking both of these statements is what C says-Rising violence can be the result of the availability of firearms to ex-criminals.
The key word is "also".It does not says that violence will only result if we guns are in the hands of ex criminals.But it is suspected that if they acquire guns,then the violence can rise.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2016
Posts: 49
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
WE: Other (Computer Software)
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2016, 02:25
C is the correct answer.

Conclusion - The proposal will result in fewer violent crimes and produce safer inner-city communities
Premise - The proposal would require gun retailers to perform background checks on potential customers thereby lengthening the time needed to purchase a firearm while also keeping guns out of the hands of known ex-criminals

So, the argument says that, fewer violent crimes would happen if background checks are performed.
Possible assumptions could be:

1) The ex-criminals do not already possess guns
2) Violent crimes can't be committed other than handguns
3) There are no other sources other than "the retailers", which can help the ex-criminals get access to guns or make it easily available

Now, amongst the given choices:
A is out of scope
In B, one can infer that, say, out of 100 times, a violent crime is done 80 times using handguns. But, 'handguns' is NOT the only choice ex-criminals have. They can pick, say, daggers etc for committing a crime
In D, author has not said anything or defined the term 'illegally'. Option is out of scope
E talks about number of firearms whereas, conclusion talks about number of violent crimes,which can be committed with less handguns too
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Jun 2014
Posts: 30
Reviews Badge
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jul 2017, 00:56
I went for B and got it wrong. But when i analyzed it, i got the point. It goes as below:

B says that ex-criminals who commit violent crimes generally do so with a firearm. But what if they already have firearms,then the rate of violent crimes will not drop. It does not weaken the conclusion but does not strengthen it either.
C says that a rise in violent crime and violence can be the result of the availability of firearms to ex-criminals. It means that availability of firearms can result in increase in crimes. This in a way is directly related to the conclusion as compared to B.
VP
VP
User avatar
P
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1203
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jul 2017, 04:11
Imo C
The argument is based on causality .
Premise 1:To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I propose that we pass new legislation banning the sell of handguns to anyone with criminal record.
Premise 2:Such a law would require gun retailers to perform background checks on potential customers thereby lengthening the time needed to purchase a firearm while also keeping guns out of the hands of known ex-criminals.
Conclusion : This proposal will result in fewer violent crimes and produce safer inner-city communities.

Assumption :Violent crimes are generally committed by ex-criminals.

A is not relevant to the argument .

B is very weak as the ex-criminals can commit crimes violent crimes without firearms.

C is our answer as if violent crimes are the result of the easily available of firearms then the legislation to restrict firearms to ex-criminals will definitely reduce the number of violent crimes .

D is weakener .

E this does not explain whether the reduction in availability of firearms will reduce the number of violent crimes .
_________________

Please give kudos if you found my answers useful

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 15 Aug 2015
Posts: 65
Location: India
Schools: LBS '18, ISB '19
GMAT 1: 610 Q48 V26
GPA: 3.21
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Aug 2017, 11:52
1
Quote:
To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I propose that we pass new legislation banning the sell of handguns to anyone with criminal record. Such a law would require gun retailers to perform background checks on potential customers thereby lengthening the time needed to purchase a firearm while also keeping guns out of the hands of known ex-criminals. This proposal will result in fewer violent crimes and produce safer inner-city communities.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion above?

(B) ex-criminals who commit violent crimes generally do so with a firearm

(C) a rise in violent crime and violence can be the result of the availability of firearms to ex-criminals

i still don't understand how is C the answer. Reading all the explanations above i still see a flaw here.
Question stem says most strengthen, C says """" can be the result""" which implies that there is a small probability of violent crimes resulting from the availability of firearms to ex criminals.
This basically breaks into if there are 100 violent crimes happening , then some ((may be 2 or 3 or max 10))
can be the result of availability of firearms to ex criminals. Does this really strengthen the conclusion-This proposal will result in fewer violent crimes and produce safer inner-city communities. ??
Few (( here can )) can't really solve the problem.
VeritasPrepKarishma mikemcgarry souvik101990 sayantanc2k
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 18 Nov 2016
Posts: 46
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Aug 2017, 09:59
I'll echo @sriramkrishnan's concerns.

Quote:
Question stem says most strengthen, C says """" can be the result""" which implies that there is a small probability of violent crimes resulting from the availability of firearms to ex criminals.


What is the meaning of "can be" in this context?
Expert Post
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
S
Joined: 01 Jul 2017
Posts: 45
To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jan 2018, 18:43
This question is clearly of the “Strengthen” type, as evidenced by the phrase in the question stem “which… would most strengthen the conclusion”. As with most Strengthen questions, our job is to identify the disconnect (or logical gap) between the conclusion and the premises upon which the conclusion relies. The primary logical gap is that we do not know if access to firearms actually causes violent crimes. The conclusion erroneously assumes that performing background checks on potential customers and keeping ex-criminals from purchasing firearms would naturally result in fewer violent crimes.

Think about all the possibilities that could disprove the conclusion: the stimulus never explicitly states (1) guns are even involved in violent crimes, (2) that ex-criminals are the ones who commit those violent crimes, or (3) that violent crime rates are connected to firearm access. If any one of these assumptions is not true, it would seriously weaken the argument.

Answer choice A does not mind the logical gap. Mentioning the goal of gun control legislation simply provides context for the story without making the argument stronger. After reading answer choice A, we are still no closer to finding out why limiting firearm access would reduce violent crime.

Answer choice B seems (at first) to strengthen the argument, but it makes several unjustifiable assumptions in the process. First, answer choice B seems to assume that the ex-criminals do not already have a firearm. If they already owned a firearm, there would be no need for them to go through the process of purchasing additional guns. Also, we do not know how much ex-criminals contribute to the violent crime statistics. Answer choice B talks about “ex-criminals who commit violent crimes”, but this could be a very small number and the conclusion could still be valid if the legislation still reduced violent crime as a whole.

Answer choice C is the correct answer. It creates a causal link between access to firearms and violent crimes. If allowing ex-criminals access to firearms increases the rate of violent crime, then restricting such access would reduce the rate. However, many people do not like answer choice C for one word: “can”. This word seems to weaken the premise. (If answer choice C said, “A rise in violent crime is always connected to the availability of firearms to ex-criminals,” then everybody would pick this answer!) Remember, though: “strengthen” questions do not need to be “prove” questions. You are simply looking for the answer choice that – according to the question stem – “most strengthens” the argument. You don’t have to make the argument bulletproof. Pun intended. You just need to strengthen it.

Answer choice D actually weakens the argument. If most ex-criminals purchased firearms outside of legal channels, then legislation affecting legal purchases would not make a difference.

Answer choice E does not mind the gap. After reading answer choice E, we are still no closer to determining whether restricting firearm access reduces violent crime. Answer choice E says restricting access reduces the number of guns, but that is not the same thing as reducing violent crime. E can be eliminated.

Three answers do not even address the logical gap. One answer seems to strengthen the argument, but requires additional information to close the deal (and you should never need additional information to solve a critical reasoning question!) Only one answer – C – creates a logical, causal link between the premises and conclusions, even if that link is somewhat weak. The answer is definitely C.
_________________

Aaron J. Pond
Veritas Prep Elite-Level Instructor

Hit "+1 Kudos" if my post helped you understand the GMAT better.
Look me up at https://www.veritasprep.com/gmat/aaron-pond/ if you want to learn more GMAT Jujitsu.

To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I   [#permalink] 03 Jan 2018, 18:43

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 28 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.