Criminologist: Increasing the current prison term for robbery will

Question

Criminologist: Increasing the current prison term for robbery will result in no significant effect in discouraging people from committing robbery.

Each of the following, if true, supports the criminologist’s claim EXCEPT:

(A) Many people who rob are motivated primarily by thrill-seeking and risk-taking
(B) An increase in the prison term for embezzlement did not change the rate at which that crime was committed
(C) Prison terms for robbery have generally decreased in length recently 
(D) Most people committing robbery believe that they will not get caught
(E) Most people committing robbery have no idea what the average sentence for robbery is

Source: LSAT

generis · Accepted Answer

adkikani , you did better than you think you did. LR is hard. This question challenges twice on the "thinking in negatives" front. First we have the claim: a STOP measure does NOT stop. The claim creates one level of having to think of "not X." Then we have the question: which of the following options does NOT support the claim? The question creates a second level of having to think of "not X." In addition, the options may create doubt about limits. It can be hard to know when you are allowed to think outside the confines of the text and when you must not do so. Oddly enough, this question contains both cases. In options A, B, and D, you must stretch a little to make a connection, must infer mental qualities about human beings whom you do not resemble. Option E, by contrast, is very literal. Most robbers know nothing about length of punishment. Thus, they will know nothing about longer punishment. Option E requires close attention to the the confines of the option. Think deterrence . Will harsher punishment stop the crime? The author says no. Longer prison sentences, she claims, will not deter or discourage people from robbing. So if these robbers are THRILL seekers, they are risk lovers, and not likely to be deterred by rules. If anything, an increased risk for a thrill seeker makes the risky behavior more tempting. Supports the claim. ELIMINATE

Your analysis is spot on. This option presents us with similar criminals' lack of response to an identical threat, a scenario from which we can infer a similar result. Embezzlers steal money while wearing white collars instead of face masks. Longer sentences do not discourage embezzlers. Other money stealers are not likely to be discouraged either. Supports the claim. ELIMINATE Yep. 100% correct. "So what" is exactly right. Whether sentences HAVE decreased in length has nothing to do with whether they SHOULD increase in length in order to change behavior. KEEP Belief matters. If people do not believe they will be caught, then they do not believe that they will serve ANY sentence -- not a long one, not a short one. Threatening a longer sentence does not make them believe they will be caught. Don't think like a rational person. YOU might be discouraged if you thought the sentence were 30 years instead of 3, but you are imagining they are sensible. They aren't. They believe they will not get caught. Sentences, period, are irrelevant to them. Supports the claim. ELIMINATE Let me rewrite, and let's see whether that helps: Most robbers HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT the AVERAGE SENTENCE for robbery. If most robbers have NO IDEA about average sentences, then they will have NO IDEA if those sentence lengths are changed. This group of clowns does not know about short sentences, medium sentences or long sentences. These people cannot be discouraged by a threat about which they are clueless. Longer sentences cannot deter people who do not know about such sentences. Those facts support the claim. ELIMINATE ***** You would have figured out (C), I think. Your strong reaction to (C) ("So what?") -- had you on the right track. All of the options involve state of mind or lack thereof except (C). The claim itself mentions nothing except deterrence . That is, the author's claim may not seem to involve states of mind such as belief, ignorance, willfulness, and arrogance. Deterrence and "discouraging," however, do involve human minds and motivations. Deterrence is aimed at the human psyche and the human intellect. In order for people to be deterred, they must be reachable, they must listen, and they must care. The four groups in A, B, D, and E are outside that population. Increasing prison stays will have "no significant effect in discouraging from committing robbery." Answer C is utterly, obnoxiously irrelevant. Hope that helps.

adkikani · Answer

nightblade354   GMATNinja   VeritasPrepKarishma   generis   pikolo2510

Please help with my understanding of argument and PoE?

Claim of author: No significant change will be observed in number of people committing robbery
by increasing prison term

CROSS out that strengthens the claim:

Motive of people are not relevant to the claim of argument. Keep it.

At first read, I considered even this irrelevant to argument. On a re-read, I thought:
I am talking about a different crime (embezzlement ) here and not robbery and am emphasizing that increase in prison term
will NOT change embezzlement rates. Although no connection is given between embezzlement and robbery, this option does 
slightly increase my belief in the claim. All I need to support the claim, not prove it (This is not as assumption question.)
Since this strengthens the argument, cross it out.

So what if this is true? I am not given the effect of this cause. Keep it

How does what people belief matter? Keep this choice.

Even if this is true, and there are relatively large number of people who commit robbery, unknowingly the 
tenure of imprisonment , this does not affect claim of author. Keep it too.

I messed up understanding the answer choices, let me know your thoughts.

pikolo2510 · Answer

Just wow  generis , you absolutely nailed this argument!

+1

adkikani , let us know if you have any questions

rajshreeasati · Answer

This question was reallly great! had me thinking a lot but thank god I ended up with the right one! by thinking about the choices longer.
Cause = Increase the term, effect = No reduction in Robbery.
Prethinking = There are other reasons for people to Rob and not Term increase or decrease. This exact pre-thinking says that we look at the answer choice that supports this idea that term increase wont have any effect. And Since this is an except question, we need to look out for Strengthners and strike them out.

(A) Many people who rob are motivated primarily by thrill-seeking and risk-taking = Strengthens. OUT
(B) An increase in the prison term for embezzlement did not change the rate at which that crime was committed. Similar Evidence = Strengthens. OUT
(C) Prison terms for robbery have generally decreased in length recently
(D) Most people committing robbery believe that they will not get caught. NOT get caught, thus they keep on robbing, thus they would never know what term increase decrease is going on! = Strengthens. OUT
(E) Most people committing robbery have no idea what the average sentence for robbery is. They dont even know the sentence, thus they wont even know that term increase would effect them or not coz they actually dont know how much it increased = Strengthens = OUT

abhishekmayank · Answer

(C) Prison terms for robbery have generally decreased in length recently

I see very harsh rejections of option C(and hence acceptance of it as right answer in the "Except" question type) that it cannot support the argument: Utterly obnoxious, irrelevant.

But whether it is really such a weak option? If the prison terms for robbery have generally decreased in length recently, it leaves the possibility that an increase in the current prison term may bring it back to original prison term before the recent decrease. Given this possibility, proposed increase in the prison term will not have deterrent effect on the perpetrator as this increase only restores the prison term before the recent decrease, and hence supports the argument.

Apeksha2101 · Answer

Is it a strengthening or weakening question, since EXCEPT is used?

agrasan · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB   MartyMurray

Is option C because it  doesn't show  whether shorter terms  increased  or  decreased  robbery so we can't predict an impact for increase in prison terms? 
Is it fair to say that we had to make our own assumption to make it correct?

KarishmaB · Answer

I wouldn't worry about this question. Too many assumptions involved for GMAT. May work for LSAT.

agrasan · Answer

Thanks  KarishmaB 
I am studying for GMAT only but I have exhausted OG CR questions but found myself enjoying LSAT CR and RCs, would you suggest me to stick me to OG questions only? maybe revision if I have already exhausted questions for practice.

KarishmaB · Answer

LSAT questions can provide good practice but not all of them. Try out only those CR questions which are GMAT-like. If you have done all of them, you know what GMAT like questions are. LSAT RC is also good for practice though the flavor of the questions is a little different and you should be aware of that. The month before the actual test one should only practice official GMAT content.

Criminologist: Increasing the current prison term for robbery will

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

Criminologist: Increasing the current prison term for robbery will

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