V02-17

Question

The executive committee of the shopping mall announced yesterday it will partner with city police to add more officers to the mall security force for the holiday shopping season. The mall security team, which consists of 10 officers, was deemed too small to keep shoppers safe after there were 44 armed robberies in the parking lot during last year's season. Almost all additional officers will patrol the north parking lot, chosen because it receives the heaviest shopper traffic.
 
Which of the following, if true, most strongly suggests that concentrating most additional officers in the north parking lot will not reduce robberies?

A. Retailers expect this to be one of the busiest shopping seasons yet, drastically increasing the number of people in mall parking lots.
B. Police reports from the previous year show that most of the robberies occurred in the south parking lot.
C. Some officers in the north parking lot will be directing traffic rather than patrolling.
D. Security cameras have been installed on light posts in all parking lots, in the hopes of identifying armed robbers.
E. There are a large number of entrances and exits to the parking lots, making isolating suspect cars difficult.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Solution:

The executive committee of the shopping mall announced yesterday it will partner with city police to add more officers to the mall security force for the holiday shopping season. The mall security team, which consists of 10 officers, was deemed too small to keep shoppers safe after there were 44 armed robberies in the parking lot during last year's season. Almost all additional officers will patrol the north parking lot, chosen because it receives the heaviest shopper traffic.
 
Which of the following, if true, most strongly suggests that concentrating most additional officers in the north parking lot will not reduce robberies?

A. Retailers expect this to be one of the busiest shopping seasons yet, drastically increasing the number of people in mall parking lots.
B. Police reports from the previous year show that most of the robberies occurred in the south parking lot.
C. Some officers in the north parking lot will be directing traffic rather than patrolling.
D. Security cameras have been installed on light posts in all parking lots, in the hopes of identifying armed robbers.
E. There are a large number of entrances and exits to the parking lots, making isolating suspect cars difficult.

Situation:  A shopping mall will increase its security force in the hopes of deterring parking lot robberies. Note that the goal is to reduce the robberies (deter them per the question) not catch as many robbers as possible. While catching criminmals could likely be an effective deterrent in itself, having a police officer simply stand on a corner would also suffice. 
 
 Reasoning:   Which point most undermines the plan to deter crime in the mall parking lot?  The executive committee plans not only to increase the number of security officers, but also to station most of the total force in the north parking lot, where there is the most traffic from shoppers. If, however, the north parking lot is not the most dangerous area around the mall, then the plan will most likely fail.
 
A. This statistic is relevant to the need for police protection for larger crowds, but does not address the soundness of the plan.
 
 B. CORRECT.  If the plan does not include increased police presence in the area that last year was most dangerous, then it most likely will not succeed.
 
C. The officers directing traffic will still constitute a police presence capable of deterring crime.
 
D. Our goal is to weaken the plan to deter crime. This answer choice is the opposite of what we need. Not only do we get officers on the ground, but now we have extra cameras, so the chances of deterring crime have gone up. Thus this is not a criticism to the plan. I don't think anyone can argue that adding the police force will be a bad idea when it comes to crime deterrence since they can work in a complimenting way - cameras can identify suspects and officers can respond and react more proactively. Crime is going down, not up. Eliminate.
 
E. The fact that there are many entrances and exits which make isolating suspect cars difficult is not relevant ot our argument (at least from the GMAT standpoint) for a few reasons. First, criminals come in all shapes and sizes - what if they come on foot or on a scooter? Why are we only targetting those who are driving a car? Second, how would an officer who is patrolling on foot be isolating cars? Third, we are not interested in catching criminals or pursuing them and having a shootout in the parking lot - that's not good for busines. We just want to reduce crime by deterring criminals, and the best deterrent is a security guard or an officer stationed at the parking lot who would either intervene or note down the suspect details in case a ciminal act is taking place.

Answer: B

rajgpln2 · Answer

While option B talks about robberies in South Parking Lot, how about A? It states it will be busy all of the mall's parking lots? Also, B mentions last year that made me choose A over B?
Thoughts?

spetznaz · Answer

Reports of robbery in the mall were also reported last year. This option ,.i.e. option B talks about crime in south parking lot last year and is hence correct.

Kavyathach2 · Answer

If most of the officers will be patrolling the North (since it sees the most traffic) but if in reality, most of the robberies happen in the south, then the plan is flawed and can be criticised.

foryearss · Answer

I understood from this sentence that being at north parking lot , will offer an advantage of seeing most traffic from shoppers through the whole mall , whether the traffic is from north of south , so i'm not convinced with B .
I see D as a better option , if there are cameras , there is no need for  more  officers to patrol traffic .

shantanushantanu · Answer

Hello,
Option B states about reports published LAST YEAR, this does not assure us that the same will be the case in present scenario.
I marked option E ,instead, because there are different parking lots in multiple areas of entry and exit and patrolling is done only on the north side hence this plan is likely to fail as robbers can come and leave from any direction.
Kindly clear this doubt.

edlc313 · Answer

I had the same exact thought process. I chose E over Option B.

I don't think B would be correct on the actual test. The test makers time and time again take advantage of lapses in logic, the low hanging fruit so to speak, from those test takers who assume on CR questions that what happened in the past will happen in the future or what is true for X is also true for Y without being clearly stated. Making these unstated assumptions is what will help you score poorly on the Verbal section, but here, we were required to assume such to get the question correct. I normally don't post about the low-quality questions, but I believe this one is low-quality

Sdhawan15 · Answer

I marked E as the answer to this ques. While i understand how B can weaken the flaw in the plan w.r.t assigning security officials in the North lot, IMO how i understood the ques was:
Why adding ADDITIONAL Security officers wouldn’t help to deter crime?
Hence, E states that even if we add lets say 10 more officers, if they’re unable to tackle the criminals due to multiple entry/exits, then the crime rate will not fall.

Sujithz001 · Answer

@bunuel/@admin, Official explanation for this question will be highly appreciable. Thanks.

Bunuel · Answer

You can find the official solution in the post directly following the first one, titled  Official Solution .

sssdd1234 · Answer

I think this is a  high-quality  question and I don't agree with the explanation. Why isn't the answer E? the question asking for basis to criticize the plan to deter crime by "adding additional security officers"- if there is an additional factor like the number of entrances and exits, wouldnt that jeopardise it? I am not quite convinced about B- the question is not asking about the positioning of the officers, it is asking about the fact that 'adding additional officers' will help deter crime. Please let me know what you think!

bb · Answer

Thank you for the question.

E) 
The fact that there are many entrances and exits which make isolating suspect cars difficult is not relevant to our argument (at least from the GMAT standpoint) for a few reasons. First, criminals come in all shapes and sizes - what if they come on foot or on a scooter? Why are we only targeting those who are driving a car? Second, how would an officer who is patrolling on foot be isolating cars? Third, they have 10 people and adding more so there will be quite a few officers at the parking lot. Even if it has a lot of entrances and exists, 10+ is still a significant force. Fourth, we are not interested in catching criminals or pursuing them and having a shootout in the parking lot - that's not good for business. We just want to reduce crime by deterring criminals, and the best deterrent is a security guard or an officer stationed at the parking lot who would either intervene or note down the suspect details in case a criminal act is taking place.

B) Tells us that the officers will positioned in the wrong parking lot. This is pretty logical and pretty strong criticism. This does not require wondering if the criminal comes on foot or by car, no matter how many officers you put, if you put them in the wrong place they won't help deter crime.

sssdd1234 · Answer

Thank you!

bb · Answer

Thank you. I have elaborated and expanded the explanation. Questions are welcome!

Dbrunik · Answer

I think this is a  high-quality  question and I agree with explanation.

Srishti153 · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

harshitasinghal · Answer

D. This point is an addition to the plan to add security officers and does not directly address the soundness of the plan.
 
But the ques has not asked about the soundness of the plna, it asked about " the best basis for criticizing the plan to deter crime by adding additional security officers?"

So by the plan that crime would be deterred by adding more security officers, if instead there are security cameras installed in all the places, the need for security officers is negated in those areas. So why is option D) incorrect?

bb · Answer

Hi. You are correct that the question asks Which of the following, if true, is the best basis for  criticizing the plan  to deter crime by adding additional security officers?
It is a bit different from soundness and may come into play but it does not come into play here.

What's happening here is that you are answering a different question. Not the one asked. You are finding an alternative security solution. Instead we need to say why the plan will not work, not how to fix it or how to make it better.

The question asks to critique the plan to deter crime by adding more police officers. The question doss NOT ask what will be a better way of deterring crime or why the police may be an overkill when there is already a great solution. The question is focusing on stopping the crime with the extra police force.

The distinction is that in D) - you have lots of cameras + additional police officers. This is not a criticism. This is a compliment to the plan. I think this is a fool-proof plan to help with security. Not only do you have officers but you have the cameras. You see it? You are going to have the officers. There is no negating the need for them. They are there in the premise.

In B) you have officers in the wrong parking lot and that's the problem, so the shoppers and the crime will not go down as expected since the police will be in the wrong place, having little effect.

BinodBhai · Answer

Although I marked B, but I feel a lot of students including me are thinking of D as 'since we have security cameras now installed, we don't need additional police officers" 
So i feel D is a confusing option

V02-17

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