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

Question

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

AaronPond · Accepted Answer

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.

jaynayak · Answer

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.

sumitsarkar82 · Answer

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

sriramkrishnan · Answer

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

hdwnkr · Answer

sayantanc2k Can you pls help with a clear explanation about the confusion between B and C?

sayantanc2k · Answer

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.

nishant12600 · Answer

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

Abhishek009 · Answer

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..

Spovil · Answer

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

NOw · Answer

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

IanStewart · Answer

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".

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".

JuniqueLid · Answer

Totally agree with Ian's comment.

Option (B) states that ex-criminals who commit violent crimes generally do so with a firearm. This supports the idea that if ex-criminals are denied legal access to guns, some proportion of violent crimes might not occur—because the instrument of violence is no longer readily accessible. Critics of (B) argue that it does not consider that ex-criminals may already possess guns or could obtain them illegally. However, this criticism misses the point. Even if some ex-criminals have alternative means of access, the law would still prevent others—those who currently do not own a firearm or prefer legal acquisition—from obtaining one, thereby reducing the incidence of gun-enabled violent crime. The fact that firearms are commonly used in these crimes makes the proposed restriction a plausible mechanism for lowering overall crime rates.

Option (C), by contrast, states that a rise in violent crime  can  result from firearm availability to ex-criminals. This is a much weaker claim. The use of "can" merely establishes a possibility, not a frequent or likely outcome. Moreover, the statement focuses on how crime might increase, not on whether it would decrease if access were restricted—which is what the argument seeks to prove. Saying that gun availability can lead to a rise in crime is not logically equivalent to saying that restricting gun access will lead to a decrease. As such, (C) provides only an indirect and speculative form of support for the conclusion.

In sum, (B) strengthens the argument more directly and convincingly. It links the restriction (banning handgun sales) with the intended outcome (reduction in violent crime) through a clear causal channel: if violent crimes by ex-criminals typically involve guns, then limiting their access to guns should reduce those crimes. While (C) outlines a possible relationship between gun access and rising crime, it does not assert that reducing access will lead to a reduction, making it less effective in supporting the author’s claim.

Brunel or bb, please remove this question from this forum.

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

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

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