Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 06:01 It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 06:01
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
User avatar
Naseeb007
User avatar
Joined: 01 Jun 2025
Last visit: 06 Oct 2025
Posts: 11
Own Kudos:
31
 [2]
Posts: 11
Kudos: 31
 [2]
In the country of Lumaria, there is a proposal to implement a new poli 12 Sep 2025, 00:05
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

26% (02:02) correct 74% (02:02) wrong based on 183 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In the country of Lumaria, there is a proposal to implement a new policy that mandates a minimum number of police officers per capita in all cities and towns. The aim is to enhance public safety and reduce crime rates. However, opponents argue that during times of economic downturn, the cost of hiring and maintaining additional police officers may be burdensome for local governments. They claim that implementing this policy would lead to financial strain and could even result in the reduction of other essential public services.

Which of the following would be most important to determine in order to evaluate the argument?

A. Whether there are alternative methods or strategies to enhance public safety and reduce crime rates other than increasing the number of police officers per capita.
B. Whether the crime rates tend to increase during economic downturns in Lumaria.
C. What the current ratio of police officers to the population is in cities and towns of Lumaria.
D. What proportion of the local government budget is allocated to public services other than law enforcement.
E. Whether any cities or towns in Lumaria have previously implemented a similar policy and experienced negative financial consequences.

Show Spoiler
Attachment:
Screenshot 2025-09-12 12.34.41 PM.png
Screenshot 2025-09-12 12.34.41 PM.png [ 126.02 KiB | Viewed 1139 times ]
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
D
User avatar
VivekSri
User avatar
Joined: 01 May 2022
Last visit: 05 Feb 2026
Posts: 431
Own Kudos:
804
Given Kudos: 117
Location: India
WE:Engineering (Consulting)
Posts: 431
Kudos: 804
In the country of Lumaria, there is a proposal to implement a new poli 13 Sep 2025, 07:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Naseeb007
In the country of Lumaria, there is a proposal to implement a new policy that mandates a minimum number of police officers per capita in all cities and towns. The aim is to enhance public safety and reduce crime rates. However, opponents argue that during times of economic downturn, the cost of hiring and maintaining additional police officers may be burdensome for local governments. They claim that implementing this policy would lead to financial strain and could even result in the reduction of other essential public services.

Which of the following would be most important to determine in order to evaluate the argument?

A. Whether there are alternative methods or strategies to enhance public safety and reduce crime rates other than increasing the number of police officers per capita.
B. Whether the crime rates tend to increase during economic downturns in Lumaria.
C. What the current ratio of police officers to the population is in cities and towns of Lumaria.
D. What proportion of the local government budget is allocated to public services other than law enforcement.
E. Whether any cities or towns in Lumaria have previously implemented a similar policy and experienced negative financial consequences.

Show Spoiler
Attachment:
Screenshot 2025-09-12 12.34.41 PM.png
Show more
OA is D

Based on the scenario, the most important factor to determine to evaluate the argument is D. What proportion of the local government budget is allocated to public services other than law enforcement.
The core of the argument against the policy is the claim that it will cause financial strain and lead to the reduction of other essential public services. To properly evaluate this claim, you need to know how much money is currently available for those other services. If a large portion of the budget is already dedicated to things like education, healthcare, and infrastructure, then a significant increase in law enforcement spending would be much more likely to require cuts to those areas. Without this information, you can't assess the validity of the opponents' main concern.

Here's why A is not the best answer and a quick example to illustrate the difference:
Why not A?
  • A. Whether there are alternative methods or strategies to enhance public safety and reduce crime rates other than increasing the number of police officers per capita.
This option is about a different argument. The debate is not whether the policy is the only way to improve public safety. The debate is specifically about the negative consequences of this particular policy—the financial burden and the potential for cutting other services. While alternative methods are relevant to the overall goal of public safety, they don't directly help you evaluate the opponents' specific argument about financial strain. The argument isn't "this policy is bad because there are other options." The argument is "this policy is bad because it will drain our budget and we'll have to cut other services."
Example:
Imagine a family is debating whether to buy a new, expensive car.
  • The Family's Argument: "We can't afford this car right now; we'd have to cancel our vacation to pay for it."
  • A-type Response: "Should we consider taking the bus instead of buying a car?" (This is about an alternative transportation method, but doesn't directly address whether they can afford the car or if the vacation would be canceled).
  • D-type Response: "How much money do we have saved up for the vacation?" (This directly evaluates the claim that they would have to sacrifice the vacation for the car).
The D-type response is most important because it directly addresses the central claim of the argument.
Based on the scenario, the most important factor to determine to evaluate the argument is D. What proportion of the local government budget is allocated to public services other than law enforcement.
The core of the argument against the policy is the claim that it will cause financial strain and lead to the reduction of other essential public services. To properly evaluate this claim, you need to know how much money is currently available for those other services. If a large portion of the budget is already dedicated to things like education, healthcare, and infrastructure, then a significant increase in law enforcement spending would be much more likely to require cuts to those areas. Without this information, you can't assess the validity of the opponents' main concern.

Here's why A is not the best answer and a quick example to illustrate the difference:
Why not A?
  • A. Whether there are alternative methods or strategies to enhance public safety and reduce crime rates other than increasing the number of police officers per capita.
This option is about a different argument. The debate is not whether the policy is the only way to improve public safety. The debate is specifically about the negative consequences of this particular policy—the financial burden and the potential for cutting other services. While alternative methods are relevant to the overall goal of public safety, they don't directly help you evaluate the opponents' specific argument about financial strain. The argument isn't "this policy is bad because there are other options." The argument is "this policy is bad because it will drain our budget and we'll have to cut other services."
Example:
Imagine a family is debating whether to buy a new, expensive car.
  • The Family's Argument: "We can't afford this car right now; we'd have to cancel our vacation to pay for it."
  • A-type Response: "Should we consider taking the bus instead of buying a car?" (This is about an alternative transportation method, but doesn't directly address whether they can afford the car or if the vacation would be canceled).
  • D-type Response: "How much money do we have saved up for the vacation?" (This directly evaluates the claim that they would have to sacrifice the vacation for the car).
The D-type response is most important because it directly addresses the central claim of the argument.
User avatar
kitkat4620
User avatar
Joined: 22 Jan 2024
Last visit: 04 Sep 2026
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 63
Posts: 14
Kudos: 1
In the country of Lumaria, there is a proposal to implement a new poli 14 Sep 2025, 08:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I don’t think D is the correct option. It is telling what proportion of total amount does public services constitute. But we are more interested in if in the amount given to public services, whether implementing this policy would reduce the budget for other public service activities.
Imo C looks better because
If the ratio is more -> the plan will not reduce the budget
If the ratio is less -> the plan will reduce the budget.
User avatar
Rashie1
User avatar
Joined: 15 May 2025
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 97
Own Kudos:
62
Given Kudos: 69
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, International Business
Posts: 97
Kudos: 62
In the country of Lumaria, there is a proposal to implement a new poli 14 Sep 2025, 08:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Answer: D
The opponents’ concern is that hiring more police will force cuts to other essential services. To evaluate this, we need to know what share of the budget is already allocated to those services. If it’s large, the concern is valid; if small, less so.
User avatar
mkeshri185
User avatar
Joined: 01 May 2025
Last visit: 27 May 2026
Posts: 108
Own Kudos:
10
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 108
Kudos: 10
In the country of Lumaria, there is a proposal to implement a new poli 14 Sep 2025, 13:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I have one doubt that what can we get by knowing 'what's the current portion allocated to other dept'? If it is 80% allocated to other and 20% to law enforcement then increasing the budget of law will decrease the portion of other so the other things may suffer.....
VivekSri

OA is D

Based on the scenario, the most important factor to determine to evaluate the argument is D. What proportion of the local government budget is allocated to public services other than law enforcement.
The core of the argument against the policy is the claim that it will cause financial strain and lead to the reduction of other essential public services. To properly evaluate this claim, you need to know how much money is currently available for those other services. If a large portion of the budget is already dedicated to things like education, healthcare, and infrastructure, then a significant increase in law enforcement spending would be much more likely to require cuts to those areas. Without this information, you can't assess the validity of the opponents' main concern.

Here's why A is not the best answer and a quick example to illustrate the difference:
Why not A?
  • A. Whether there are alternative methods or strategies to enhance public safety and reduce crime rates other than increasing the number of police officers per capita.
This option is about a different argument. The debate is not whether the policy is the only way to improve public safety. The debate is specifically about the negative consequences of this particular policy—the financial burden and the potential for cutting other services. While alternative methods are relevant to the overall goal of public safety, they don't directly help you evaluate the opponents' specific argument about financial strain. The argument isn't "this policy is bad because there are other options." The argument is "this policy is bad because it will drain our budget and we'll have to cut other services."
Example:
Imagine a family is debating whether to buy a new, expensive car.
  • The Family's Argument: "We can't afford this car right now; we'd have to cancel our vacation to pay for it."
  • A-type Response: "Should we consider taking the bus instead of buying a car?" (This is about an alternative transportation method, but doesn't directly address whether they can afford the car or if the vacation would be canceled).
  • D-type Response: "How much money do we have saved up for the vacation?" (This directly evaluates the claim that they would have to sacrifice the vacation for the car).
The D-type response is most important because it directly addresses the central claim of the argument.
Based on the scenario, the most important factor to determine to evaluate the argument is D. What proportion of the local government budget is allocated to public services other than law enforcement.
The core of the argument against the policy is the claim that it will cause financial strain and lead to the reduction of other essential public services. To properly evaluate this claim, you need to know how much money is currently available for those other services. If a large portion of the budget is already dedicated to things like education, healthcare, and infrastructure, then a significant increase in law enforcement spending would be much more likely to require cuts to those areas. Without this information, you can't assess the validity of the opponents' main concern.

Here's why A is not the best answer and a quick example to illustrate the difference:
Why not A?
  • A. Whether there are alternative methods or strategies to enhance public safety and reduce crime rates other than increasing the number of police officers per capita.
This option is about a different argument. The debate is not whether the policy is the only way to improve public safety. The debate is specifically about the negative consequences of this particular policy—the financial burden and the potential for cutting other services. While alternative methods are relevant to the overall goal of public safety, they don't directly help you evaluate the opponents' specific argument about financial strain. The argument isn't "this policy is bad because there are other options." The argument is "this policy is bad because it will drain our budget and we'll have to cut other services."
Example:
Imagine a family is debating whether to buy a new, expensive car.
  • The Family's Argument: "We can't afford this car right now; we'd have to cancel our vacation to pay for it."
  • A-type Response: "Should we consider taking the bus instead of buying a car?" (This is about an alternative transportation method, but doesn't directly address whether they can afford the car or if the vacation would be canceled).
  • D-type Response: "How much money do we have saved up for the vacation?" (This directly evaluates the claim that they would have to sacrifice the vacation for the car).
The D-type response is most important because it directly addresses the central claim of the argument.
Show more
User avatar
thereule
User avatar
Joined: 15 Mar 2021
Last visit: 11 Jan 2026
Posts: 4
Given Kudos: 18
Posts: 4
Kudos: 0
In the country of Lumaria, there is a proposal to implement a new poli 15 Sep 2025, 07:27
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
How can we decide what's small or large? As every country might have different needs, in some country they may have to invest more in education in other more in defence as no other context is given about the county in the question. In my opinion I dont think you can necessarily know what is small or large. And also let's say for instance we know exact percentages are known, it still wouldn't help us.

Rashie1
Answer: D
The opponents’ concern is that hiring more police will force cuts to other essential services. To evaluate this, we need to know what share of the budget is already allocated to those services. If it’s large, the concern is valid; if small, less so.
Show more
User avatar
terminatork07
User avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2023
Last visit: 22 May 2026
Posts: 33
Own Kudos:
5
Given Kudos: 23
Posts: 33
Kudos: 5
In the country of Lumaria, there is a proposal to implement a new poli 18 Sep 2025, 08:41
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
IMO, the background of the opponents claim relies on - "during times of economic downturn...". The mandate is being evaluated in the case of the economic downturn where the cost of hiring and maintaining additional police officers may be burdensome for local governments (This is actually the premise). So when you look at C, and think hmmm "What if the ratio of police/population is enough"? WAIT AND LOOK AT THE PREMISE.

GMAT RULE- Never reason against the boundaries of the premise premise.
kitkat4620
I don’t think D is the correct option. It is telling what proportion of total amount does public services constitute. But we are more interested in if in the amount given to public services, whether implementing this policy would reduce the budget for other public service activities.
Imo C looks better because
If the ratio is more -> the plan will not reduce the budget
If the ratio is less -> the plan will reduce the budget.
Show more
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
AbhishekP220108
Verbal Forum Moderator
705 posts