Police officers in Smith County who receive Special Weapons and Tactic

Question

Police officers in Smith County who receive Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) training spend considerable time in weapons instruction and practice. This time spent developing expertise in the use of guns affects the instincts of Smith County officers, making them too reliant on firearms. In the past year in Smith County, in 12 of the 14 cases in which police officers shot a suspect while attempting to make an arrest, the officer involved had received SWAT training, although only 5 percent of the police force as a whole in the county had received such training.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

(A) In an adjacent county, all of the cases in which police shot suspects involved officers with SWAT training.

(B) SWAT training stresses the need for surprise, speed, and aggression when approaching suspects.

(C) Only 15 percent of Smith County’s SWAT training course is devoted to firearms lessons.

(D) Among officers involved in the arrest of suspects in Smith County in the past year, the proportion who had received SWAT training was similar to the proportion who had received SWAT training in the police force as a whole.

(E) Some Smith County officers without SWAT training have not been on a firing range in years.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

Putup577 · Answer

Could you please help to explain the answer choice D. ?

DanTheGMATMan · Answer

The author implies that the SWAT training is causing some police to be too trigger-happy, citing the fact that most of the arrests that involved deadly shootings by officers who had had SWAT training, while only a small portion of the police force overall has SWAT training. The issue is that perhaps the officers who received SWAT training were simply more likely to be then tasked with arresting suspects and were put into more dangerous situations in general.

D strengthens the argument by establishing that the officers involved in making arrests were not disproprtionately SWAT-trained. They reflect the police force in general. This suggests that because SWAT-trained officers are more involved in deadly shootings, it's more likely that it IS this training causing it, and not just a statistical mismatch.

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises: Only 5 percent of the police force as a whole in Smith county received SWAT training. In 12 of the 14 cases in which police officers shot a suspect while arresting, the officer involved had received SWAT training. Conclusion: SWAT training makes officers too reliant on firearms (i.e. they use them unnecessarily) Now here is a problem in the conclusion. 5% is the data for the police force as a whole (including those involved in admin work, those filing, those doing traffic duty etc.) Is the 5% of data valid for officers involved in active field duty too (arresting people)? If yes, then it seems that SWAT training makes them use the guns more. If no, and say 90% field police officers do get SWAT training, then the argument has no implication. We need to strengthen the argument. (A) In an adjacent county, all of the cases in which police shot suspects involved officers with SWAT training. Irrelevant. (B) SWAT training stresses the need for surprise, speed, and aggression when approaching suspects. Doesn't help us evaluate the data. (C) Only 15 percent of Smith County’s SWAT training course is devoted to firearms lessons. Irrelevant. 15% could be a big enough chunk to have the impact the argument says it does. (D) Among officers involved in the arrest of suspects in Smith County in the past year, the proportion who had received SWAT training was similar to the proportion who had received SWAT training in the police force as a whole. Correct. It tells us that among the active duty field officers arresting people too, only 5% get SWAT training. And still almost all of those who shoot people are those who got SWAT training. Certainly looks like SWAT training makes them reliant of firearms. (E) Some Smith County officers without SWAT training have not been on a firing range in years. Irrelevant. Answer (D) P.S. - When I looked at this question, I thought of Sets and how we can use them to neatly tie up the data given to us. So I see that we are talking about cases in Smith County so I think of making my universal set - Smith county officers who arrest people. Some of them have received SWAT training and some have not. Then I look at the data given - 5% for police force as a whole and this makes me realise that there is a gap. I do not know the figure for police officers actually arresting people. Hence, the question got solved very quickly. Here is the link to a part of my webinar in which I discussed how to use Sets in some CR questions: https://youtu.be/XCBp62o70Eg

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

SWAT training, the author concludes in the second sentence, is making Smith County officers too reliant on firearms. The evidence in the third sentence presents you with many different numbers and figures. However, the important thing to note here is the shift in scope between the conclusion, which is about Smith County police officers in general, and the evidence, which is about the 14 cases that involved shootings during an arrest.

That scope shift signals that you’ve found the right detail to focus on. If the author is using data from arrests to make a point about the effects of SWAT training on the police force as a whole, it will make a difference if, for example, a disproportionate number of officers involved in making arrests have received SWAT training. Since you’re looking for the answer choice that strengthens the argument, you need one that equates officers making arrests to officers at large.

Choice (D) is the correct answer.  If (D) is true, then the officers in the 14 cases are representative of officers as a whole, and the argument is strengthened.

Notice that paying Attention to the Right Detail—the one that the question hinges upon—enables you to form a prediction of what the correct answer will contain. Selecting an answer then becomes a straightforward matter of finding the choice that matches your prediction, rather than a time consuming process of debating the pros and cons of each answer choice in turn. Throughout this book, you will learn to distinguish the important from the inconsequential on the GMAT.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Police officers in Smith County who receive Special Weapons and Tactic

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

Police officers in Smith County who receive Special Weapons and Tactic

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