Prior to the new poice patrolling program, which requires police cars

Question

Prior to the new police patrolling program, which requires police cars to patrol areas of the city every hour, the sale of burglar alarms in the city was high. However, since the new program has come in place, people are no longer buying those expensive equipment. Clearly, the police patrolling program is the reason for the decline in purchase of the burglar alarms.

The argument above assumes that

A. new police patrolling program is effective in controlling burglaries
B. most people supported the new police patrolling program
C. people's perception of the threat of burglaries decreased because of the new police patrolling program 
D. people thrust the police patrolling vehicles more than they trust burglar alarms.
E. people have formed an opinion that even the most advanced burglar alarms cannot help prevent robberies because the burglars have become more technologically advanced.

Source : Experts Global

Play4Ever · Answer

Since it is a causal argument so for correct assumption cause implies effect and effect must be true . Thus option A is correct.

Sent from my Redmi 3S using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Khuranasup · Answer

The assumption should always be a glue to join the premise and the conclusion. When the assumption is negated the argument should fall apart. Only C is perfectly acting as a glue here. 
My pick- C

Gags10 · Answer

My take is C:
A. new police patrolling program is effective in controlling burglaries

Not sure whether the alarms were effective as well, but people had the alarms installed. Even if the program is not effective, people know that paroling progarm is an alternate to the alarms.

B. most people supported the new police patrolling program
Doesn't matter whether people supported the program. It is in place. Therefore, OOS.

C. people's perception of the threat of burglaries decreased because of the new police patrolling program

This option seems correct. Yes, people have started believing that patrolling program is in fact reducing burglaries, hence they have stopped buying the alarm. Negate it .. people believe that patrolling hasn't decreased the burglaries, they wont stop buying the alarms.

D. people thrust the police patrolling vehicles more than they trust burglar alarms.

People may trust patrolling vehicles more, but is it to the extent that they stop buying alarms. Do they believe, they need both alarms and patrolling vehicle or just patrolling vehicle ( so that they stop buying the alarms) - not clear. Hence, not a good answer choice.

E. people have formed an opinion that even the most advanced burglar alarms cannot help prevent robberies because the burglars have become more technologically advanced.

If people have formed an opinion that alarms don't work, then, even if the patrolling happens or not, they wont buy the alarms. In this case, patrolling is not a reason that they stopped buying alarms. This seems to be a kind of weakener.

pushpitkc · Answer

Video Explanation by   Experts Global

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49Mta3u9JXA

Squib17 · Answer

Premise: Prior to the new police patrolling program, which requires police cars to patrol areas of the city every hour, the sale of burglar alarms in the city was high.

Counter-premise: However, since the new program has come in place, people are no longer buying those expensive equipment.

Conclusion: Clearly, the police patrolling program is the reason for the decline in the purchase of the burglar alarms.

Pre-thinking - If people feel that police patrolling program will help better in decreasing burglary then that could be one of the reasons for not buying the alarms anymore. The important thing to note here is that it is the perception that has changed! This does not necessarily mean that Police Patrolling system is better than alarms!

The argument above assumes that

A. new police patrolling program is effective in controlling burglaries  But what if alarms are more effective? This option does not bring about the assumption that the people have in mind while not buying alarms - Irrelevant option - Hence discarded ]

B. most people supported the new police patrolling program  Even if they don't support it, it does not matter. Because some they might still consider it to be better than the alarms. ]
C. people's perception of the threat of burglaries decreased because of the new police patrolling program  If the perception of threat decreases, that automatically means that people don't feel the need of alarms! This is the CORRECT answer ]

D. people trust the police patrolling vehicles more than they trust burglar alarms.  Even if the trust it equally, that could be reason enough for them to stop spending money on alarms - Thus this can't be the assumption ]

E. people have formed an opinion that even the most advanced burglar alarms cannot help prevent robberies because the burglars have become more technologically advanced. Out of Scope - The police factor does not come into picture here and we are given an alternate reason for not using the alarm. ]

aragonn · Answer

pushpitkc

As mentioned in official video explanation the answer should be E not C. you have mention answer as C

Hero8888 · Answer

Hi  pushpitkc

Please check. The conclusion of the argument on GMATCLUB and that in your video are different.

GMACLUB: new program-->decrease in sales
YOUR VIDEO: new program->decrease in sales-->people feel more safe

Hence, the OA assumption is not valid anymore, because we don't have the part about people feel more safe.

GMATbuster92 · Answer

the options in video are different from the options given in question.so how come answer is E?

pushpitkc · Answer

kshitizbansal92  and  Hero8888  - Apologies for uploading
the wrong video. I have updated it with the correct video now.

aragonn  - That was the reason for the confusion. The correct answer option is C!

aragonn · Answer

This is interesting. Both videos are from expertglobal. Somehow they made two videos with different answers. How we know which one is correct. Funny though!

Maxximus · Answer

I see that a different video was shared by mistake. The question and the answer choices were different. The error probably happened because while searching on YouTube, the user found a different question with a similar language.

To avoid any confusion, I am putting the correct video once again here-

All the best!
Experts' Global team

To avoid any confusion, I am putting the correct video once again here-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49Mta3u9JXA

All the best!
Experts' Global team

dhruvasv5 · Answer

The conclusion of the argument is: Sale of alarms has decreased due to increased patrol of police.
Option C is correct as: If you negate option C- If the threat increased with increased patrol, then why will be get rid of alarms. Hence there will be some other reason for getting rid of alarms, and not due to patrol(i.e. conclusion does not hold true)

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.

Prior to the new poice patrolling program, which requires police cars

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

Prior to the new poice patrolling program, which requires police cars

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