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 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
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 2512:30 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 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.
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
73% (02:06) correct
27%
(02:24)
wrong
based on 2744
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.
In the argument as a whole, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.
B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.
D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.
E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.
In the argument as a whole, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.
B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.
D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.
E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.
Every tricky question should trigger a follow up quiz.
Build that habit with
GMAT Club Forum Quiz →.
27 May 2019, 13:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
You need to remember that the individual "speaking" is the criminologist. (C) is the conclusion of the legislator, not the criminologist...therefore, it can't be the conclusion.
Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.
Notes
(Opposite View) L: if 3rd serious crime —> mandate life sentence
(Opposing View) L: life sentence take ppl off streets —> lower crime
(Premise) C: old people unlikely commit 3rd crime
(Premise) C: younger commit more crime
(Conclusion) C: filling prison w/ old(er) people will NOT lower crime
Analysis & Pre-Think
There’s actually two conclusions here but only one is the criminologist’s conclusion. The criminologist first shares some context regarding what the legislators’ policy advocates, which is to require that all individual who commit a third senior crime to be sentenced for life. He then tells us the legislators (falsely) conclude that their policy would lower crime.
After sharing the opposing viewpoint, the criminologist then disagrees (“what this reasoning overlooks”) with the aforementioned conclusion. His disagreement is supported by his claim that people who already served two sentences are highly unlikely to commit another crime. Because of this claim, he concludes that the legislators are wrong (“opposite of the desired effect”) because “younger criminals [...tend to] commit” more serious crimes.
So from our notes above, we can see that the first bold-face is the legislator’s conclusion and the second is the criminologist’s conclusion. When we think about these two statements in relation to each other, we can note that they are opposing view points. Let’s see what our choices give us.
In the argument as a whole, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.
Ah, the classic “half-right” answer. The first half is gold. The second half says that the criminologist’s conclusion is a “claim” (which it is....?) but then says the “claim” is advanced to support “that conclusion.” In this case, “that” refers to the legislator’s conclusion. The criminologist DOES NOT support the legislator’s at all.
B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
Here we go! This matches our pre-thinking process.
C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.
No, the first is the legislator’s conclusion.
D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.
Same as (C).
E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.
Is the first a generalization under consideration? Hm, I guess. How about the second? The second definitely does not point out a group of “exceptional cases”....
Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.
Notes
(Opposite View) L: if 3rd serious crime —> mandate life sentence
(Opposing View) L: life sentence take ppl off streets —> lower crime
(Premise) C: old people unlikely commit 3rd crime
(Premise) C: younger commit more crime
(Conclusion) C: filling prison w/ old(er) people will NOT lower crime
Analysis & Pre-Think
There’s actually two conclusions here but only one is the criminologist’s conclusion. The criminologist first shares some context regarding what the legislators’ policy advocates, which is to require that all individual who commit a third senior crime to be sentenced for life. He then tells us the legislators (falsely) conclude that their policy would lower crime.
After sharing the opposing viewpoint, the criminologist then disagrees (“what this reasoning overlooks”) with the aforementioned conclusion. His disagreement is supported by his claim that people who already served two sentences are highly unlikely to commit another crime. Because of this claim, he concludes that the legislators are wrong (“opposite of the desired effect”) because “younger criminals [...tend to] commit” more serious crimes.
So from our notes above, we can see that the first bold-face is the legislator’s conclusion and the second is the criminologist’s conclusion. When we think about these two statements in relation to each other, we can note that they are opposing view points. Let’s see what our choices give us.
In the argument as a whole, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.
Ah, the classic “half-right” answer. The first half is gold. The second half says that the criminologist’s conclusion is a “claim” (which it is....?) but then says the “claim” is advanced to support “that conclusion.” In this case, “that” refers to the legislator’s conclusion. The criminologist DOES NOT support the legislator’s at all.
B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
Here we go! This matches our pre-thinking process.
C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.
No, the first is the legislator’s conclusion.
D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.
Same as (C).
E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.
Is the first a generalization under consideration? Hm, I guess. How about the second? The second definitely does not point out a group of “exceptional cases”....
General Discussion
23 Oct 2005, 11:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
B should be the correct answer. The first sentence is not an actual conclusion, but a point that the author want to refute. The sencond sentence is that main conclusio of the argument.
