Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
03 Apr 2024, 21:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
65% (01:19) correct
35%
(01:35)
wrong
based on 806
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents in the city of Meadowbrook is 60 percent higher now than it was four years ago. The corresponding increase for Parkdale is only 10 percent. It is clear, therefore, that a resident of Meadowbrook is now significantly more likely to become a victim of violent crime than a resident of Parkdale is.
The argument given is most vulnerable to the objection that it fails to consider
A) how the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale
B) how concerned about becoming a victim of violent crime the residents of Meadowbrook are as compared to residents of Parkdale
C) whether the types of violent crime that have increased in Meadowbrook over the past four years are as serious as those that have increased in Parkdale
D) the relative sizes of the populations of Parkdale and Meadowbrook
E) the violent-crime rates in Meadowbrook and Parkdale four years ago
The argument given is most vulnerable to the objection that it fails to consider
A) how the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale
B) how concerned about becoming a victim of violent crime the residents of Meadowbrook are as compared to residents of Parkdale
C) whether the types of violent crime that have increased in Meadowbrook over the past four years are as serious as those that have increased in Parkdale
D) the relative sizes of the populations of Parkdale and Meadowbrook
E) the violent-crime rates in Meadowbrook and Parkdale four years ago
Question exposed a gap?
Take sectional Adaptive Quant, Verbal, or DI tests on GMAT Club and review the detailed score report.
Get started →
18 Apr 2024, 10:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
The number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents in the city of Meadowbrook is 60 percent higher now than it was four years ago. The corresponding increase for Parkdale is only 10 percent. It is clear, therefore, that a resident of Meadowbrook is now significantly more likely to become a victim of violent crime than a resident of Parkdale is.
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
It is clear, therefore, that a resident of Meadowbrook is now significantly more likely to become a victim of violent crime than a resident of Parkdale is.
The support for the conclusion is the following:
The number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents in the city of Meadowbrook is 60 percent higher now than it was four years ago. The corresponding increase for Parkdale is only 10 percent.
One thing we might notice about the argument is that the evidence is about PERCENTAGE INCREASES in numbers of crimes per 1,000 residents whereas the conclusion is about THE CURRENT LIKELIHOOD of a resident becoming a victim of crime.
In other words, as we'll discuss in more detail in going through the choices, the argument has made a leap from increases over time to actual crime rates at the present time without effectively connecting the two.
The argument given is most vulnerable to the objection that it fails to consider
The question is a Logical Flaw question, and the correct answer will highlight something such that the argument is flawed because it fails to consider that.
A) how the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale
Notice that the evidence in the argument is about "violent crimes per 1000 residents" and that the conclusion is about how "likely" a resident is to become a victim of crime.
Neither of those statistics is affected by how much the populations grew. After all, regardless of how much the population of a city grows, that fact does not change the number of crimes per resident since crimes per 1000 residents is a ratio of total crimes to total residents. That ratio would not be expected to have changed just because the population of a city changed. Rather, as the number of residents grew, we'd expect the number of crimes to grow at about the same rate.
In other words, the TOTAL number of crimes in a city would logically be affected by population growth, but the crimes PER RESIDENT would not.
So, that the argument does not consider the rates of population growth is not a flaw because the argument works without consideration of those rates.
Eliminate.
B) how concerned about becoming a victim of violent crime the residents of Meadowbrook are as compared to residents of Parkdale
The argument is about actual numbers of crimes per 1000 residents and the likelihood that a person will be a victim of crime. Those statistic remain what they are regardless of how concerned people are about becoming victims of crime. In other words, even if residents of Meadowbrook are not as concerned as residents of Parkdale about crime, there still has been a larger increase in crime in Meadowbrook than in Parkdale.
So, the argument is not flawed because it doesn't consider how concerned people are about becoming victims of crime since it's not about concerns. It's about what's actually occurring.
Eliminate.
C) whether the types of violent crime that have increased in Meadowbrook over the past four years are as serious as those that have increased in Parkdale
The argument is not about the effects of crime or how serious crimes are. It's solely about crimes per thousand residents and the likelihood that a resident will be a victim of crime.
So, while it doesn't consider seriousness of crimes, that it doesn't is not a flaw.
Eliminate.
D) the relative sizes of the populations of Parkdale and Meadowbrook
As we discussed in considering choice (A), the evidence in the argument is about "violent crimes per 1000 residents" and the conclusion is about how "likely" a resident is to become a victim of crime.
Neither of those statistics is affected by the size of the population. In other words, regardless of what the populations of the two cities are, the numbers of crimes "per 1000 residents" and the likelihood of a resident becoming a victim of crime have the same meaning. After all, regardless of how large the population of a city is, that fact does not change the number of crimes per resident or the likelihood of a resident being a victim of a crime, which are ratios of numbers of crimes to total population.
So, the argument doesn't have to consider the relative sizes of the populations of the two municipalities because the relative sizes don't affect what the argument is about.
Eliminate.
E) the violent-crime rates in Meadowbrook and Parkdale four years ago
This choice is interesting.
As discussed in the analysis of the argument above, the argument makes a leap from evidence about percentage increases in crimes per 1000 residents over time to a conclusion about crime rates at the present time. The issue with using that evidence to support that conclusion is that there are no reference points to connect the two.
After all, information on a percentage increase in crime in a city doesn't tell us the city's current crime rate. After all, a city that started off with a low crime rate could have a huge percentage increase in crime and still have a low crime rate, and a city that started off with a high crime rate could have a small percentage increase in crime and still have a much higher crime rate than another city.
So, in this case, the fact that Meadowbrook experienced a much greater percentage increase in crime than Parkdale doesn't necessarily mean that Meadowbrook currently has a higher crime rate than Parkdale. After all, Meadowbrook's crime rate could have started at a much lower base.
In general, to effectively support a conclusion about current crime rates using information about percentage increases, an argument needs information about the starting rates, which this argument does not have.
So, this argument is flawed because it does not consider the starting violent crime rates in the two municipalities four years ago.
Keep.
Correct answer: E
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
It is clear, therefore, that a resident of Meadowbrook is now significantly more likely to become a victim of violent crime than a resident of Parkdale is.
The support for the conclusion is the following:
The number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents in the city of Meadowbrook is 60 percent higher now than it was four years ago. The corresponding increase for Parkdale is only 10 percent.
One thing we might notice about the argument is that the evidence is about PERCENTAGE INCREASES in numbers of crimes per 1,000 residents whereas the conclusion is about THE CURRENT LIKELIHOOD of a resident becoming a victim of crime.
In other words, as we'll discuss in more detail in going through the choices, the argument has made a leap from increases over time to actual crime rates at the present time without effectively connecting the two.
The argument given is most vulnerable to the objection that it fails to consider
The question is a Logical Flaw question, and the correct answer will highlight something such that the argument is flawed because it fails to consider that.
A) how the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale
Notice that the evidence in the argument is about "violent crimes per 1000 residents" and that the conclusion is about how "likely" a resident is to become a victim of crime.
Neither of those statistics is affected by how much the populations grew. After all, regardless of how much the population of a city grows, that fact does not change the number of crimes per resident since crimes per 1000 residents is a ratio of total crimes to total residents. That ratio would not be expected to have changed just because the population of a city changed. Rather, as the number of residents grew, we'd expect the number of crimes to grow at about the same rate.
In other words, the TOTAL number of crimes in a city would logically be affected by population growth, but the crimes PER RESIDENT would not.
So, that the argument does not consider the rates of population growth is not a flaw because the argument works without consideration of those rates.
Eliminate.
B) how concerned about becoming a victim of violent crime the residents of Meadowbrook are as compared to residents of Parkdale
The argument is about actual numbers of crimes per 1000 residents and the likelihood that a person will be a victim of crime. Those statistic remain what they are regardless of how concerned people are about becoming victims of crime. In other words, even if residents of Meadowbrook are not as concerned as residents of Parkdale about crime, there still has been a larger increase in crime in Meadowbrook than in Parkdale.
So, the argument is not flawed because it doesn't consider how concerned people are about becoming victims of crime since it's not about concerns. It's about what's actually occurring.
Eliminate.
C) whether the types of violent crime that have increased in Meadowbrook over the past four years are as serious as those that have increased in Parkdale
The argument is not about the effects of crime or how serious crimes are. It's solely about crimes per thousand residents and the likelihood that a resident will be a victim of crime.
So, while it doesn't consider seriousness of crimes, that it doesn't is not a flaw.
Eliminate.
D) the relative sizes of the populations of Parkdale and Meadowbrook
As we discussed in considering choice (A), the evidence in the argument is about "violent crimes per 1000 residents" and the conclusion is about how "likely" a resident is to become a victim of crime.
Neither of those statistics is affected by the size of the population. In other words, regardless of what the populations of the two cities are, the numbers of crimes "per 1000 residents" and the likelihood of a resident becoming a victim of crime have the same meaning. After all, regardless of how large the population of a city is, that fact does not change the number of crimes per resident or the likelihood of a resident being a victim of a crime, which are ratios of numbers of crimes to total population.
So, the argument doesn't have to consider the relative sizes of the populations of the two municipalities because the relative sizes don't affect what the argument is about.
Eliminate.
E) the violent-crime rates in Meadowbrook and Parkdale four years ago
This choice is interesting.
As discussed in the analysis of the argument above, the argument makes a leap from evidence about percentage increases in crimes per 1000 residents over time to a conclusion about crime rates at the present time. The issue with using that evidence to support that conclusion is that there are no reference points to connect the two.
After all, information on a percentage increase in crime in a city doesn't tell us the city's current crime rate. After all, a city that started off with a low crime rate could have a huge percentage increase in crime and still have a low crime rate, and a city that started off with a high crime rate could have a small percentage increase in crime and still have a much higher crime rate than another city.
So, in this case, the fact that Meadowbrook experienced a much greater percentage increase in crime than Parkdale doesn't necessarily mean that Meadowbrook currently has a higher crime rate than Parkdale. After all, Meadowbrook's crime rate could have started at a much lower base.
In general, to effectively support a conclusion about current crime rates using information about percentage increases, an argument needs information about the starting rates, which this argument does not have.
So, this argument is flawed because it does not consider the starting violent crime rates in the two municipalities four years ago.
Keep.
Correct answer: E
General Discussion
18 May 2025, 22:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
The argument concludes that:
To critique this reasoning, we want to look for an answer choice that points out a missing piece of relevant information — something that, if known, might weaken or cast doubt on the conclusion.
✅ Correct Answer: E) the violent-crime rates in Meadowbrook and Parkdale four years ago
Why this is correct:
If four years ago, Parkdale had a much higher violent crime rate than Meadowbrook, then even after a 60% increase in Meadowbrook and only a 10% increase in Parkdale, Parkdale might still have a higher current rate.
Example:
Thus, without knowing the starting point, the conclusion that Meadowbrook is now more dangerous is not necessarily valid. That’s why E points out a critical flaw in the reasoning.
❌ Why the other options are incorrect:
A) how the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale
This is irrelevant. The statistic used is violent crimes per 1,000 residents, which already adjusts for population size. So growth in raw population doesn’t impact the comparison.
B) how concerned about becoming a victim of violent crime the residents of Meadowbrook are as compared to residents of Parkdale
This is about perceptions, not actual crime rates. The argument is about statistical likelihood, not how people feel.
C) whether the types of violent crime that have increased in Meadowbrook over the past four years are as serious as those that have increased in Parkdale
This might be relevant for judging severity, but the argument is about likelihood of being a victim, not whether the crimes are more severe or harmful. So this misses the point of the conclusion.
D) the relative sizes of the populations of Parkdale and Meadowbrook
Again, the crime rate is per 1,000 residents, so it already normalizes for population size. Total population doesn’t matter for the per capita comparison the argument is making.
Quote:
Because:
- The number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents increased 60% in Meadowbrook
- The number increased only 10% in Parkdale
To critique this reasoning, we want to look for an answer choice that points out a missing piece of relevant information — something that, if known, might weaken or cast doubt on the conclusion.
✅ Correct Answer: E) the violent-crime rates in Meadowbrook and Parkdale four years ago
Why this is correct:
If four years ago, Parkdale had a much higher violent crime rate than Meadowbrook, then even after a 60% increase in Meadowbrook and only a 10% increase in Parkdale, Parkdale might still have a higher current rate.
Example:
- Meadowbrook 4 years ago: 5 crimes per 1,000 → now 8 (60% increase)
- Parkdale 4 years ago: 10 crimes per 1,000 → now 11 (10% increase)
Thus, without knowing the starting point, the conclusion that Meadowbrook is now more dangerous is not necessarily valid. That’s why E points out a critical flaw in the reasoning.
❌ Why the other options are incorrect:
A) how the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale
This is irrelevant. The statistic used is violent crimes per 1,000 residents, which already adjusts for population size. So growth in raw population doesn’t impact the comparison.
B) how concerned about becoming a victim of violent crime the residents of Meadowbrook are as compared to residents of Parkdale
This is about perceptions, not actual crime rates. The argument is about statistical likelihood, not how people feel.
C) whether the types of violent crime that have increased in Meadowbrook over the past four years are as serious as those that have increased in Parkdale
This might be relevant for judging severity, but the argument is about likelihood of being a victim, not whether the crimes are more severe or harmful. So this misses the point of the conclusion.
D) the relative sizes of the populations of Parkdale and Meadowbrook
Again, the crime rate is per 1,000 residents, so it already normalizes for population size. Total population doesn’t matter for the per capita comparison the argument is making.
