A recent report determined that although only 15 percent of a town’s

Question

A recent report determined that although only 15 percent of a town’s population resides in low income areas, 20 percent of all criminals sentenced during the last five years lived in low income areas. Clearly, people who live in low income areas are more likely to commit criminal activities than those who do not.
 
The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A. People who live in low income areas are less likely to be prosecuted than people who do not.

B. The people living in low income areas cannot afford the costly litigation expenses and their prosecution is more likely to convert into a sentence.

C. On committing a crime, the people living in low income areas are not more likely to be sentenced than people not living in the same.

D. The number of criminal incidents in high income areas was lower than that in low income areas.

E. Many of the criminals sentenced were sentenced more than once in the time period covered in the report

Source: Experts Global

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

15% people live in low income areas.
20% of all criminals sentenced lived in low income areas.

Conclusion: People who live in low income areas are more likely to commit criminal activities than those who do not.

Now, there is a gap in our premises and the conclusion. The premises talk about criminals sentenced. The conclusion talks about "people more likely to commit criminal activities". There is a gap between committing crimes and being sentenced. The argument assumes that the two are the same. So we need to look for an option that tells us that all those who commit crimes have the same probability of getting sentenced, not higher (to account for the higher %age of sentencing).

A. People who live in low income areas are less likely to be prosecuted than people who do not.

This says people of income areas are less likely to be prosecuted. But we need the probabilities to be the same.

B. The people living in low income areas cannot afford the costly litigation expenses and their prosecution is more likely to convert into a sentence.

Again, this says that people of income areas are more likely to be sentenced. But we need the probabilities to be the same.

C. On committing a crime, the people living in low income areas are not more likely to be sentenced than people not living in the same.

This says they are not more likely to be sentenced (so the probability is the same). It is logical that they will not be less likely to be sentenced because they are from low income areas. Hence, this is the correct assumption.

D. The number of criminal incidents in high income areas was lower than that in low income areas.

Where the crimes happened is irrelevant. We need to focus on where the criminals resided.

E. Many of the criminals sentenced were sentenced more than once in the time period covered in the report

Irrelevant.

Answer (C)

Meechampolee · Answer

I really think the answer is C. using negation technique

Lonewolf9171 · Answer

Option D makes more sense than rest of them.

Sent from my MI PAD using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

habdo · Answer

I go for C, the option D was not mentioned anywhere in the passage

Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum

abrakadabra21 · Answer

On committing a crime, the people living in low income areas are more likely to be sentenced than people not living in the same. => and that means that people who live in low income areas are more likely to commit criminal activities than those who do not - this is no longer valid.

A. People who live in low income areas are  less  likely to be prosecuted than people who do not. => negate more or equal. In case of equal, it doesn't invalidate the conclusion.

B. The people living in low income areas can afford the costly litigation expenses and their prosecution is  less  likely to convert into a sentence. => it does the reverse effect.

so C IS ANSWER>

mohshu · Answer

negating C breaks the conclusion..

ans C

pratikupadhyayo · Answer

Answere C talks about the sentencing of crime, whereas the conclusion says about commiting a crime. Negation of option D breaks the conclusion

longhaul123 · Answer

can someone help me with the option B because if you see it states that it was not the area of living or the low income level that caused them to sentence rather the affordable court expenses that led them for the sentence.Why is this option incorrect??

chanuGupta · Answer

I also go with option B as in option C it only restates the mentioned premise .

nayyarsidharth · Answer

longhaul123

Option B is incorrect because it provides a different explanation for the high incidence of crime in low income areas than what the author argues.

To simplify this further:

Argument concludes that 'people in low income areas are more likely to commit crimes'

Option B says: It's not that they are more likely to commit crimes rather they cannot afford litigation expense and hence get sentenced which makes it appear that they more likely to commit crimes.

Option B is contradicting the stance taken by the original argument.

Assumption questions require us to strengthen the argument in some way. Option C does this very well because it plugs a hole in a possible contention to this argument. This contention could be that 'it's not that people are more likely to commit crimes but they are more likely to get sentenced, hence the high rate of sentencing'. Option C closes this door by saying these people are NOT more likely to be sentenced than other people.

Hope you got it.

hellosanthosh2k2 · Answer

Answer should be C.

Answer can't be B. Answer B sort of weakening the argument.

Argument says:  Clearly, people who live in low income areas are more likely to commit criminal activities than those who do not.

But B says  The people living in low income areas cannot afford the costly litigation expenses and their prosecution is more likely to convert into a sentence .
Maybe more criminals from high-income areas than low-income area criminals are able to afford the costly litigation expenses and not convert into sentence. So this weakens the argument that people living in low income areas are more likely to commit criminial activities.

B would have been a perfect answer, had this question been a weakening argument question.

ShankSouljaBoi · Answer

Hi  Gladiator59  Your take on D
Commiting a crime and getting sentenced for the same are quite different. Went for D with one.

Regards

Gladiator59 · Answer

ShankSouljaBoi , Let us break down the argument - A recent report determined that although only 15 percent of a town’s population resides in low income areas, 20 percent of all criminals sentenced during the last five years lived in low income areas . Clearly, people who live in low income areas are more likely to commit criminal activities than those who do not. So, the argument is clearly making a jump from "getting sentenced" to "committing a crime" and we need to find the information to plug this gap. A. People who live in low income areas are less likely to be prosecuted than people who do not. Again, it is about sentencing and not prosecution - also, this goes 180 opposite to what is being said in argument B. The people living in low income areas cannot afford the costly litigation expenses and their prosecution is more likely to convert into a sentence. This explain the apparent paradox, but we are trying to find the assumption - so this goes against the argument C. On committing a crime, the people living in low income areas are not more likely to be sentenced than people not living in the same. Perfect - this plugs the gap brilliantly. If the author does not assume this than the argument falls (on similar lines of option B) D. The number of criminal incidents in high income areas was lower than that in low income areas. This is not related to the assumption. This is completely new information and hence it does not fill the gap between "sentences" and "crimes" E. Many of the criminals sentenced were sentenced more than once in the time period covered in the report Could be true for both sides and hence does not fill the gap Hope this helps.

Archit3110 · Answer

Gladiator59  ; your logic is correct of putting this sentence into gap ; but in assumption question to get an answer correct most of us apply negation technique , it seems like that the answer option should have had been :

On committing a crime, the people living in low income areas  are more likely  to be sentenced than people not living in the same.

which upon doing the negation would had been the correct answer ..

where as if you do the negation of the given C option ; it does not break the conclusion....

saiprasanna · Answer

VeritasKarishma  can you help us on this

ShankSouljaBoi · Answer

My retake ..worked fine let me try  saiprasanna

Conclusion flaw is correlation is considered causality

Conc: out of a meager 15% , 2o% are criminals, meaning that more criminals are from these low income areas.

A. People who live in low income areas are less likely to be prosecuted than people who do not.

Negate...
1) = Likely conclusion stands
2) More likely = conclusion breaks.

B. The people living in low income areas cannot afford the costly litigation expenses and their prosecution is more likely to convert into a sentence.
This is a weakener, we need exact opposite of this, a strengthener.

C. On committing a crime, the people living in low income areas are not more likely to be sentenced than people not living in the same.

Again negate...
1) = likely -- conc breaks
2) more likely -- conc breaks

D. The number of criminal incidents in high income areas was lower than that in low income areas.

Place of crime is irrelevant to the conclusion.

E. Many of the criminals sentenced were sentenced more than once in the time period covered in the report.

Weakener . Opposite is needed , a strengthener.

Kudos if this helped.

Posted from my mobile device

crashthird · Answer

Committing a crime is not same as Sentencing a crime. Premise talks about sentencing, while conclusion talks about committing. Hence Conclusion must be something that fills the gap. Answer C fills the gap correctly.

goaltop30mba · Answer

hi  VeritasKarishma

I do understand the explanation that you have provided, but I still have a doubt.

The data in the argument shows that  "people living in low income areas are more likely to get sentenced for committing a crime than are people living in not-low income areas" . Getting to this observation is possible when we assume that the ones who got sentenced did commit the crimes and got prosecuted for those crimes.

The author concludes that  "people living in low income areas are more likely to commit a crime than are people living in not-low income areas" .

Now i do see that there clearly is a gap between what the data is showing and what the author is saying ie. there is definitely some connection between "committing a crime" and "getting sentenced for it". I also agree that option C mentions this missing connection, BUT isn't option C going against what the data is saying? As mentioned above the data says that one group is more likely to get sentenced for committing a crime than is the group, but, given option C as the answer, author is assuming the opposite of what the data is saying in order to get to his conclusion? How can an option that is going against what the data is showing (what the the data is showing is clearly a fact ie something that we cannot change) be the answer?

regards,

MBAB123 · Answer

Hey goaltop30mba , C is just ruling out that the possibility that people living in lower income are more likely to be sentenced. That is also logically possible as rich people might have influential lawyers and other resources, which might tip the odds in their favour. C just says that the lower income people do not have a higher likelihood of being sentenced. That does mean that they have a lower likelihood (we don't know that). Option C is certainly not the opposite of what the Data has given and is only offering an insight on the likelihood. Good luck on your top 30 Goal!

A recent report determined that although only 15 percent of a town’s

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

A recent report determined that although only 15 percent of a town’s

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