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

It is currently 22 Sep 2018, 11:58

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

VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1361
To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 25 Jul 2016, 04:38
4
21
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

34% (01:35) correct 66% (01:41) wrong based on 960 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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

Originally posted by u2lover on 03 Aug 2006, 13:24.
Last edited by Vyshak on 25 Jul 2016, 04:38, edited 1 time in total.
Added OA
Most Helpful Expert Reply
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
S
Joined: 01 Jul 2017
Posts: 49
Location: United States
Concentration: Leadership, Organizational Behavior
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.

General Discussion
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 21
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 03 Aug 2006, 14:52
1
Why not B?

ex-criminals will be prevented from buying firearms by the new legislation so they won't be able to commit crimes at least with firearms and there will be fewer crimes.

However, C also looks like logical. But "can be" is a little confusing. If we take that "can be" is decreasing the strength of the argument (itself), then B is the answer.

Originally posted by Eren on 03 Aug 2006, 14:14.
Last edited by Eren on 03 Aug 2006, 14:52, edited 1 time in total.
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2819
Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Aug 2006, 14:48
1
A, D and E are out of scope.

Tough choice between B and C.

Even though C is also logically strengthening the argument but B is the strengthening more than C.

So finally I go with B.
_________________

SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 362
Location: TX
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Aug 2006, 15:54
B it is .

Both B and C strengthen the argument but C does it to a lesser extent than B.

B says 'generally do so' which is near to being certain.
C says 'can be' which means could be , may be but not certain to same extent as B.
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 2290
Schools: Darden
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Aug 2006, 16:29
I think it's E. The passages states that the purpose of the handgun legislation is 'to counter the escalating violence of inner cities'. The question asks which statement would most strengthen the argument if true. If E is true, then the legislation would result in a reduction of the number of firearms in most inner cities. I believe this accomplished the goal as stated in the passage.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 334
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Aug 2006, 21:47
I'll go with C.
C makes it clear that ex-criminals are responsible for the rise in crimes, B misses this point.
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1696
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Aug 2006, 22:16
Its a tough call between B and C

What tilted the favour to B, was the mention of rise in violet crimes in C.
The conclusion is "proposal will result in fewer violent crimes and produce safer inner-city communities. "

B states that violet crimes are commited by ex criminals with firearms.
Hence if we take out the firarms from them, there will be a reduction in violent crimes.

C means that if we take out the guns ..... the crime rate will remain constant not rise..... but that is not the conclusion.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Jun 2006
Posts: 60
Location: Hyderabad, India
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2006, 00:23
B for me.

ex-criminals who commit violent crimes generally do so with a firearm - lesser the firearms available to ex-criminals, lesser the violent crimes.
_________________

Hema

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2004
Posts: 310
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2006, 03:16
3
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?

(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

Please explain


I would say C.... B says that "ex-criminals who commit violent crimes generally do so with a firearm".... so what if they have the firearms or procure them illegally...

C states a reason that rise is directly related to "availability of firearms to ex-criminals" ... So curbing this will reduce the crime...

Also the argument starts with To counter the escalating violence of inner cities so even if the crime rate is kept constant, that would be fine... C will help to curb it officially

________________________________________________________

I might be wrong but then this is what I make out of this....[/b]
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 651
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2006, 07:35
I will go for E.

In my opinion, legislation will not allow crimes to do purchase and its background check will not let danger people(who are not officially declared) to do shopping. Overall background process also slow down the sale.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1318
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2006, 11:11
C for me. It is in fact a key assumption for the argument, which is that banning sale of fire arms to known criminals will result in fewer violent crimes - what does this depend on? that firearms AID in Violence as stated in C.

Now Negating C - firearms with ex-criminals do NOT aid in violence, implying that the presence of fire arms with ex criminals would make no difference to the Violence, will kill the argument.

B is limited in scope because it talks about the use (read utility) of firearms in committing crimes which is not so big a deal in this case.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1361
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2006, 16:59
like many here, I picked B, but OA is C
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1361
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2006, 20:12
OE:

Only Choice C draws a direct link b/w the goal of the proposed legislation (a reduction of violence in inner-city communities) and the actions taken by the legislation (restricting sells of firearms to ex-criminals).

While Choice B seems similar to Choice C, Choice B ties crime to firearms. Choice C ties crime to availability of firearms. Since the legislation will only restrict the availability of firearms by restricting legal retail sells only Choice C directly strengthens the conclusion.

sorry for typos if any... can't copy and paste this one :cry:
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
B
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5062
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Aug 2006, 04:16
u2lover wrote:
OE:

Only Choice C draws a direct link b/w the goal of the proposed legislation (a reduction of violence in inner-city communities) and the actions taken by the legislation (restricting sells of firearms to ex-criminals).

While Choice B seems similar to Choice C, Choice B ties crime to firearms. Choice C ties crime to availability of firearms. Since the legislation will only restrict the availability of firearms by restricting legal retail sells only Choice C directly strengthens the conclusion.

sorry for typos if any... can't copy and paste this one :cry:


Additionally, choice (B) assumes that all ex-criminals are guilty of committing violent crimes. That means anybody convicted of even a misdamenanor like drunk driving would be considered a threat to society if they possessed a gun.

(C) is the best choice here.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 29 May 2016
Posts: 109
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2016, 23:32
problem is "escalating violence of inner cities"
solution is :- banning the sell of handguns to anyone with criminal record
and gun dealers to perform check
this will 1) buy time and help stop selling gun to anyone with criminal record

Assumption :- 1) Gun dealers are the only choice to get firearms and keep gun out of reach. What any with criminal records will get this gun from somewhere else.
2) banning handguns to ex criminals will be related to escalating violence of inner cities"
B and C
B is too generic, it only tells us the nature of criminals who commit crime. It does not tell us anything how it is related to increased violence in inner city
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Posts: 28
To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Aug 2016, 03:21
1
People are more confused with options B and C.

The argument starts with the line, "to counter the escalating violence" and propose banning the sell of handguns to anyone with criminal record. Why should someone propose banning specifically to ex-crimers? Because they feel or have statistics which states that the ex-crimers were responsible for the violence. Otherwise they would have proposed a BGC for everyone who wants to have a handgun.

Hence C is the clear winner.

(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
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2015
Posts: 229
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, 17:38
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

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 18 Aug 2013
Posts: 138
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, 18:55
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'.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3112
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, 06:48
3
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I &nbs [#permalink] 25 Aug 2016, 06:48

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 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


Copyright

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®.