It is currently 12 Dec 2017, 15:54

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2015
Posts: 259

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 165

GMAT 1: 540 Q39 V26
GMAT 2: 680 Q46 V37
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2016, 16:38
sayantanc2k Can you pls help with a clear explanation about the confusion between B and C? :(
_________________

Fais de ta vie un rêve et d'un rêve une réalité

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 165

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 18 Aug 2013
Posts: 150

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 127

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V28
GPA: 3.92
WE: Operations (Transportation)
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2016, 17:55
u2lover wrote:
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

Please explain


Here are my views--

Option 'C' states that--"a rise in violent crime and violence can be the result of the availability of firearms to ex-criminals" ,here 'can' depicts the probability of 50-50 where as in
Option 'B'--"ex-criminals who commit violent crimes generally do so with a firearm" here,'generally' depicts the probability of more than 50%.

We need to select the option which strengthen the argument most.IMO its 'B'.

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 127

Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Verbal Expert
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3227

Kudos [?]: 3631 [2], given: 22

Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Aug 2016, 05:48
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
hdwnkr wrote:
sayantanc2k Can you pls help with a clear explanation about the confusion between B and C? :(



If ex-criminals "generally" commit crime using guns, then it is also implied that they already possess guns and do not require approval to buy new guns (they are ex-criminals, implying they have already committed crimes using guns). Hence the new rules will not have any effect as far as ex-criminals are concerned. Hence B is not the correct answer.

Option C implies that those ex-criminals need guns to be available to them (implying they may not be possessing the guns they used for their previous crimes). Thus restricting availability would decrease the number of crimes. Hence C is correct.

Kudos [?]: 3631 [2], given: 22

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 10 Nov 2015
Posts: 15

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 105

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
Reviews Badge
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Sep 2016, 06:18
u2lover wrote:
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

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

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 105

Board of Directors
User avatar
G
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 3106

Kudos [?]: 1144 [0], given: 327

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, 10:19
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 )

Kudos [?]: 1144 [0], given: 327

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2015
Posts: 42

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 62

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Oct 2016, 09:36
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.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 62

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2016
Posts: 55

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 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, 01:25
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

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 49

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Jun 2014
Posts: 30

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 4

Reviews Badge
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2017, 23:56
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.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 4

VP
VP
User avatar
G
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1088

Kudos [?]: 89 [0], given: 564

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: 314 Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
CAT Tests
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jul 2017, 03:11
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 .
_________________

We are more often frightened than hurt; and we suffer more from imagination than from reality

Kudos [?]: 89 [0], given: 564

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 15 Aug 2015
Posts: 61

Kudos [?]: 11 [1], given: 302

Schools: LBS '18
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Aug 2017, 10:52
1
This post received
KUDOS
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

Kudos [?]: 11 [1], given: 302

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 18 Nov 2016
Posts: 51

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 145

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Aug 2017, 08:59
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?

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 145

Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I   [#permalink] 27 Aug 2017, 08:59

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 31 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  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| 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®.