From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily

Question

From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily decreased by over 50%, from a rate of 1,861 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 1994 down to 851 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2001. Criminologists have partially attributed this drop to proactive policing tactics such as “broken window po-licing,” wherein city officials immediately fixed small acts of vandalism and, as a result, lowered other types of criminal behavior. During this same period, the rate of violent crime in the United States steadily decreased by 28% (down to 500 violent crimes per 100,000 people).

Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information above?

(A) The decrease in the total crime rate in the United States caused the decrease in New York City’s crime rate.

(B) New York City spends more per capita on law enforcement than does the rest of the United States.

(C) If the rest of the United States were to adopt law enforcement tactics similar to those of New York City, national violent crime rates would continue to fall.

(D) Between 1994 and 2001, the violent crime rate in New York City was consistently higher than the national average.

(E) The violent crime rate in New York City will soon be below the national average.

WoundedTiger · Accepted Answer

Carcass san,

In My Opinion ans is D.

(A) The decrease in the total crime rate in the United States caused the decrease in New York City’s crime rate. ------> Need not be because some other city would have seen even higher % decrease and may have contributed more to the decrease in TCR in United states.

(B) New York City spends more per capita on law enforcement than does the rest of the United States. ---------->  This is no where discussed in the passage or neither there is any link between law enforcement and Spending

(C) If the rest of the United States were to adopt law enforcement tactics similar to those of New York City, national violent crime rates would 
continue to fall.----->  Each city/state is different...We cannot be really sure

(D) Between 1994 and 2001, the violent crime rate in New York City was consistently higher than the national average.  ------> This can be the case...The total crime rate in US in the period would have come down from 561/0.72~800 to 561 which is well below CR in Newyork

(E) The violent crime rate in New York City will soon be below the national average.---->  We don't know if this will happen...It is in future...

abhijeetsharad · Answer

For conclusion questions we need to find a choice which can be proved from the passage.

(A) The decrease in the total crime rate in the United States caused the decrease in New York City’s crime rate.
 This is a causal statement and nothing has been mentioned about the relation between decrease in New York and United States crime rate  
(B) New York City spends more per capita on law enforcement than does the rest of the United States. 
 Nothing has been mentioned about per capita expenditure 
(C) If the rest of the United States were to adopt law enforcement tactics similar to those of New York City, national violent crime rates would 
continue to fall.
 This statement also has no valid prove in the passage

(D) Between 1994 and 2001, the violent crime rate in New York City was consistently higher than the national average. 
 It has been mentioned that during the same period crime rate has come down by 28 % so the max crime rate was 500*1.28 which is lower than 1861. Hence this is the answer

(E) The violent crime rate in New York City will soon be below the national average.
 This is a prediction and cant be validated

Answer D

LucyDang · Answer

This question states 3 facts:
1. 1994-2001: violent crime  in New York City  decreased from a rate of 1,861 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 1994 down to 851 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2001
2. Criminologists have partially attributed this drop to proactive policing tactics.
3. Observed phenomenon in  the U.S  during this time: the rate of violent crime decreased by 28% down to 500 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

This question ask to draw  conclusion  
-->  All given information is absolutely true! 
-->  There is no need to assume other things to draw this conclusion

1) That X and Y coexist does not mean that X causes Y or vice versa. If we want to conclude X cause Y, we have to assume other things.
2) The given information already mentioned that this drop in New York city caused by proactive policing tactics
-->  Incorrect

-->  Out of scope.  Per captia on law enforcement is not mentioned at all in the argument.  Incorrect

We need to assume other things to get this conclusion. For example: the rest of the US will have similar conditions to apply this law enforcement. -  Incorrect

During 1994-2001:  
1)  in NY city : violent crime decreased from a rate of  1,861 violent crimes per 100,000 people  in 1994 down to  851 violent crimes per 100,000 people  in 2001
2)  the whole US : the rate of violent crime decreased by  28%   from about  609 violent crimes per 100,000 people  to  500 violent crimes per 100,000 people. 
-->  Clearly, when we calculate the real number of violent crime rate, we know that this conclusion is correct based on the given information.Yeah, 609 is lower than 851, yeah!!!   Correct

Out of scope : The argument only talks about 194-2001. No information provided to predict future.  Incorrect

Carcass · Answer

Thank you guys for your answers.

Hope the OE is pretty much clear

For those who wonder which is the level of the question is at least 650 but I would stop to wonder about

First of all during the exam you do not know which is which about a question.

Secondly, and here i could report a clear example: think about a combinatorics problem, despite of your current score you will see always 2/3 questions. Therefore, you are in the 400 or in the 770 si the same. As such, probability and combinatoris we do know are tough questions but this is not of a preview of your score.

The only thing you care about is being aggressive on a question (whatever is its level) and move on...........

Do not hesitate to ask if something is unclear

JarvisR · Answer

From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily decreased by over 50%, from a rate of 1,861 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 1994 down to 851 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2001. Criminologists have partially attributed this drop to proactive policing tactics such as “broken window po-licing,” wherein city officials immediately fixed small acts of vandalism and, as a result, lowered other types of criminal behavior. During this same period, the rate of violent crime in the United States steadily decreased by 28% (down to 500 violent crimes per 100,000 people).
Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information above?
>>Correct answer shall pass the fact test based upon the argument mentioned.
(A) The decrease in the total crime rate in the United States caused the decrease in New York City’s crime rate.
>>Nothing to prove this.These two events occurred at same time but there are no proofs or links to confirm this.
(B) New York City spends more per capita on law enforcement than does the rest of the United States. 
>>No info regarding this in argument.
(C) If the rest of the United States were to adopt law enforcement tactics similar to those of New York City, national violent crime rates would continue to fall.
>>No info regarding this in argument.
( D) Between 1994 and 2001, the violent crime rate in New York City was consistently higher than the national average. 
>> Tempting as we have given all the figures to prove this. After calc it passes the fact test.
 (E) The violent crime rate in New York City will soon be below the national average.
>> Nope. Nothing in argument to infer this.

ajdse22 · Answer

From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily decreased by over 50%, from a rate of 1,861 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 1994 down to 851 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2001. Criminologists have partially attributed this drop to proactive policing tactics such as “broken window po-licing,” wherein city officials immediately fixed small acts of vandalism and, as a result, lowered other types of criminal behavior. During this same period, the rate of violent crime in the United States steadily decreased by 28% (down to 500 violent crimes per 100,000 people).

Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information above?

(A) The decrease in the total crime rate in the United States caused the decrease in New York City’s crime rate.
We don't have any causal relationship depicted in the argument.

(B) New York City spends more per capita on law enforcement than does the rest of the United States.
We can't say this based on the passage.

(C) If the rest of the United States were to adopt law enforcement tactics similar to those of New York City, national violent crime rates would continue to fall.
We are only told about the percentage reduction in crime and nothing else.

(D) Between 1994 and 2001, the violent crime rate in New York City was consistently higher than the national average.
True. 851>500.

(E) The violent crime rate in New York City will soon be below the national average.
We can't say anything about this either.

(E) The violent crime rate in New York City will soon be below the national average. This is taking too far. For this time frame the decrease % was higher but how do we know if it will continue to do so in future. And what is soon?

EugeneFish · Answer

NY crime rate proportion :  
in 2001 : 851 / 100,000 (more than 50% decrease)
in 1994 : 1861 / 100,000 (which represents 100%)

US crime rate proportion : 
in 2001 : 500 / 100,000 (about 30% decrease)
in 1994 : 715 / 100,000 (which represents 100%)

Therefore, comparing NY to US :  
in 1994 : 1881 / 100,000 > 715 / 100,000 ----------> NY > US
in 2001 : 851 / 100,000 > 500 / 100,000 ------------> NY > US

Option D is correct.

All other options cannot be inferred from the passage.

gmatexam439 · Answer

From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily decreased by over 50%, from a rate of 1,861 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 1994 down to 851 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2001. Criminologists have partially attributed this drop to proactive policing tactics such as “broken window po-licing,” wherein city officials immediately fixed small acts of vandalism and, as a result, lowered other types of criminal behavior. During this same period, the rate of violent crime in the United States steadily decreased by 28% (down to 500 violent crimes per 100,000 people).

Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information above?

(A) The decrease in the total crime rate in the United States caused the decrease in New York City’s crime rate.
 We don't have any causal relationship depicted in the argument.

(B) New York City spends more per capita on law enforcement than does the rest of the United States. 
 We can't say this based on the passage.

(C) If the rest of the United States were to adopt law enforcement tactics similar to those of New York City, national violent crime rates would continue to fall.
 We are only told about the percentage reduction in crime and nothing else.

(D) Between 1994 and 2001, the violent crime rate in New York City was consistently higher than the national average. 
 True. 851>500.

(E) The violent crime rate in New York City will soon be below the national average.
 We can't say anything about this either.

kapstone1996 · Answer

Answer D:

In the question it mentions "conclusion best supported," D is the only one that is best supported, just by the numbers given, NYC had a higher rate of crime rate.

Energon · Answer

A seems illogical as cities constitutes country and not the other way round. So average of cities would constitute overall average of a country.

Am I right?

Posted from my mobile device

RamseyGooner · Answer

The keyword for this questions is "Steadily" decreased, in absence of which one may infer that the rate might have climbed above that of 1994 or stooped lower than that of 2001.

I made the mistake here. If the word steadily is not mentioned, I guess C would be the most suitable answer but under the given circumstances, its D.

SuxrobJamol · Answer

Hi! what if avarage national crime rate higher than NY in 95-96 years?

Sparsh007 · Answer

Hi Suxrob, according to my knowledge it is not possible as NY saw a downfall of 50% and national average saw a downfall of 28%.

From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily

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

From 1994 to 2001, violent crime in New York City steadily

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