Statistics show that more than half of the nation's murder victims

Question

Statistics show that more than half of the nation's murder victims knew their assialants; in fact, 24 percent last year were killed by relatives. Nor was death always completely unexpected. In one study, about half the murder victims in a particular city had called for police protection at least five times during the 24 months before they were murdered. Nonetheless, most people are more likely to fear being killed by a stranger in an unfamiliar situation than by a friend or relative at home.

Which of the following, if true, best explains the attitude of most people to the likelihood of being murdered?

A. Statistics are likely to be discounted no matter what the source, if their implication seems to run counter to the common sense

B. In the face of such upsetting problems as murder and assault, most people are more likely to react emotionally rather than rationally

C. A study taken in only on city is not likely to have an effect on attitudes until similar studies have been undertaken at the national level and have yielded similar results.

D. Most people do not consider themselves to be in the high risk groups in which murder occurs frequently between relations, but they do see themselves as at least minimally susceptible to random violence.

E. People who seek police protection from relatives and friends are often unwilling to press charges once the emotions of the moment have cooled.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

Shyam97 · Answer

Option D perfectly explaining how people assess their own personal risk. It states that most people don't view themselves as belonging to the specific, high-risk groups where domestic or acquaintance murders frequently happen. However, they do recognize that random violence by a stranger is something that could happen to anyone, which makes them fear it more.

Vivek1707 · Answer

A. Too general. It says people ignore statistics that clash with common sense, but doesn't explain why they fear strangers specifically.
B. “People react emotionally” is too vague. It doesn't explain the particular difference in their fears.
C. The passage already gives national statistics, so a single-city study isn't the issue.
D. Correct This explains both sides nicely. People don't see themselves as part of the high-risk groups where relatives are the killers, but anyone can imagine being attacked randomly by a stranger.
E. This might explain why some victims don't press charges, but it doesn't explain why people fear strangers more than relatives.

officiisnobis · Answer

Only option D makes sense. Other options seem irrelevant.

Groot2076 · Answer

I agree with you as it is the only relevant option here

Statistics show that more than half of the nation's murder victims

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

Statistics show that more than half of the nation's murder victims

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