Last year, of the reported thefts that occurred in shopping malls in

Question

Last year, of the reported thefts that occurred in shopping malls in Texas, the percentage that took place in digital electronic stores increased by two percent from the year before. Because most thefts do not result in the return of stolen goods, this increase likely resulted in a negative economic impact on these digital electronic stores that was greater than the impact that had been accounted for by their yearly budgets, for stores make predictions about the loss of money due to theft based on the number of thefts they recorded in the previous year.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument given?

A. People who steal and are not caught and forced to return the merchandise are likely to steal again.

B. The percentage of reported thefts in shopping malls in Texas that were from jewelry stores last year also increased.

C. Last year, of the total number of thefts from shopping malls across the United States, the percentage of thefts from shopping malls in Texas was lower than it had been the year before.

D. Merchandise stolen from digital electronics stores is generally more expensive than that stolen from other stores.

E. The number of total thefts that were reported in shopping malls in Texas last year was significantly lower than it has been in a decade.

sathishkumar434 · Accepted Answer

Very good question... Even, I didn't agree with OA... I re-read it many times and finally understood why the answer is E.

"Last year, of the reported thefts that occurred in shopping malls in Texas, the percentage that took place in digital electronic stores increased by two percent from the year before."

When I first read the above sentence, I interpreted it as:
Last year, the percentage of thefts that took place in digital electronic stores increased by two percent from the year before.

So, if in the previous year the number of thefts in digital elec stores was 100, then in the last year the number of such thefts is 102.

This interpretation is wrong. Observe the limiting modifier "of the reported thefts that occurred in shopping malls in Texas". The percentage is with respect to the total number of thefts.

The correct interpretation is:
Let us say in year 2012 the number of ALL thefts is 100 and the number of thefts in digital elec stores is 50. Hence, the percentage of thefts that took place in digital elec stores is 50%.

It is told in the passage that this percentage is greater by 2 compared to the previous year. So, if we assume that the previous year, 2011, also had same number of total thefts, then the number of thefts in digital elec stores should be 48.

The argument says that as the digital elec stores would have predicted the number of thefts to be 48, they will have an economic impact caused by the extra 2 thefts. Although, this is based on the assumption that the number of thefts in previous year is same as the last year.

Option E quashes this assumption. It says that the number of thefts in 2012 is lesser than the number of thefts in 2011.
In numerical terms:
If in the year 2011, the number of thefts was 200 and 48% of the thefts occurred in digital elec stores, then the number of thefts in digital elec stores is 96. 
But in year 2012, the number of thefts was only 100 and 50% of those thefts occurred in digital elec stores. Hence the number of thefts in digital elec stores is 50.

So, the stores were anticipating 96 thefts but only 50 thefts occurred. Hence there is no economic impact to these stores.

sudhir18n · Answer

I think its E.
If the total number of thefts were significantly lower last year , all the shopkeepers would have budgeted their numbers based on the this exceptionally low %. 
This clearly is wrong , and weakens the conclusion that increase in theft by 2% will translate into huge losses.

lets the average of threats = 10%
last year it was 5 %
if the shopkeeps budgeted on the basis of this 5%, then they are underestimating the impact.Its not the 2% increase that caused the drift in margins.

Aj85 · Answer

I think the answer should be E.

2 choices are close E and C- but C is wrong because even if percentage of thefts from texas as part of total theft of US might have decreased, still the number of thefts from texas could have increased or remained same. such situation is completely possible if overall number of thefts in us would have significantly increased last year.

E should be answer because if total theft decreased significantly last year, then 2 % increase in thefts in electronic stores can't be alarming.

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.

Last year, of the reported thefts that occurred in shopping malls in

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

Last year, of the reported thefts that occurred in shopping malls in

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