To counter the escalating violence of inner cities, I propose that we

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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..
_________________

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

VeritasKarishma can you please explain why not B. I'm still confused between B and C

Imagine if B were false. Then the law would be pointless -- if criminals don't use guns anyway, it won't matter if they're prevented from buying guns. So knowing that B is true clearly strengthens the argument, and B is a good answer here. The arguments above that rule out B (those that suggest criminals might already own guns, for example) are introducing assumptions we have no basis to make, and besides, we don't need an airtight strengthener, only something that gives us more reason to believe the law will achieve its purpose (which is precisely what the company instructor reply says when justifying C, but does not apply to answer B, where the principle is just as relevant). I have reservations about the word "can" in answer C, but answer C seems like a pretty good answer otherwise, so this doesn't seem like a good question to me.

There is also no such thing as an "ex-criminal". A criminal is someone who has committed a crime. I think they mean to say "ex-convict".
_________________

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

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.
_________________