A year after the start an experiment to decrease crime in two high-crime subway stations by the installation of closed-circuit televisions, the experiment is being discontinued, city officials say the program has led to an increase in crime, citing the fact that following the installation, both stations showed increases in the number of crimes reported.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the claim of the city officials that the program has led to an increase in crime?
We have to support the conclusion that the program has not led to an increase in crime in those 2 areas(A) The two subway stations had been chosen on the basis subway stations was higher than that of other high-crime subway stations not equipped with closed-circuit-television.
The basis of choosing doesn't support our conclusion(B) The rate of increase in crimes reported for two subway stations was higher than that of other high-crime subway stations not equipped with closed-circuit television.
This option also doesn't support our conclusion(C) The percentage of all crimes committed at the two subway stations that were reported rose as a result of increased instances of observations of crime on the closed-circuit televisions.
This option states that the percentage of REPORTED CASES have increased, implying that only the reporting of cases has increased because they were caught on camera. Otherwise, these increased cases of crime would have gone unnoticed. Thus this option supports our conclusion (D) The year in which the experiment was conducted was a year in which the total number of crimes reported in the city fell.
This option doesn't support our conclusion(E) Closed-circuit televisions installed in shops and stores throughout the city have proved to be useful in the prevention of shoplifting and burglaries.
This option also doesn't support our conclusion