|
|
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.
08 Oct 2019, 06:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
36% (02:01) correct
64%
(02:04)
wrong
based on 518
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In order to counter terrorism, the Xanadu government passed a bill which allows the police to take under custody any individual who the police believe to be posing a danger to public safety. It has been five years since the law was implemented and over this span, the general crime rate has decreased by a marked 20 percent but terrorism-related crime rate has decreased by a modest 3 percent. It is clear that this law has been more effective in curbing general crime than in curbing terrorism.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A) Some of the criminals arrested under the new law continue to operate their terrorist activities from behind bars.
B) More number of criminals involved in general crimes were detained than those involved in terrorism under the new law.
C) The number of terrorist activities has risen by 5 percent globally.
D) If it were not for the new law, general crime rate would have increased by 10 percent over the same span.
E) The police has greater role to play in curbing general crimes than in curbing terrorism, which is a matter of greater intelligence and military relevance
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A) Some of the criminals arrested under the new law continue to operate their terrorist activities from behind bars.
B) More number of criminals involved in general crimes were detained than those involved in terrorism under the new law.
C) The number of terrorist activities has risen by 5 percent globally.
D) If it were not for the new law, general crime rate would have increased by 10 percent over the same span.
E) The police has greater role to play in curbing general crimes than in curbing terrorism, which is a matter of greater intelligence and military relevance
15 Oct 2019, 02:04
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi AdityaHongunti
First - I've been getting tagged on a number of Experts' Global questions lately, and I have to say that everyone's time would be better spent practicing on verbal questions from official sources. The new Advanced Questions have come out from GMAT and I would encourage candidates to practice on those questions rather than waste time trying to discern the logic of questions from questionable sources.
Next - I'm not sold by the OA on this question, but I can definitely tell you why B is not our best answer. Luckily, there are a few takeaways that you can apply to official questions.
1) What are you actually trying to strengthen here?
You want to strengthen that this law is the CAUSE of the decline in both general crimes and terrorism-related crimes, and that the law is having a greater effect on general crimes. The evidence already tells you that there has been a more significant percentage decrease in general crimes during the appropriate time period. You don't need to strengthen that evidence. You need to strengthen the idea that the law is the REASON for that change.
B, if anything, seems to be trying to strengthen the evidence - that there has been a change. But this is not needed. The evidence doesn't need help!
2) B actually doesn't even strengthen the evidence.
Why?
The prompt talks about a percentage decrease and B talks about a decrease in hard numbers. ALWAYS be very careful of the difference between percentage changes and hard number changes. When you have no idea of the underlying population size (total number of general crimes in the different years vs. total number of terrorism-related crimes in those years), you have no way of evaluating the magnitude of the change. And B just says "more" ... extremely weak language. That could be 1 more or 1 million more - you have no idea. (Note also that "more number of criminals" is horrible English and should give you a hint that this is likely a poor-quality question.)
It sounds like you thought that comparing percentage changes represented weak evidence ... I'm not sure why. That would only be weak if the conclusion was about hard numbers - but it's not.
Let me know if that helps.
First - I've been getting tagged on a number of Experts' Global questions lately, and I have to say that everyone's time would be better spent practicing on verbal questions from official sources. The new Advanced Questions have come out from GMAT and I would encourage candidates to practice on those questions rather than waste time trying to discern the logic of questions from questionable sources.
Next - I'm not sold by the OA on this question, but I can definitely tell you why B is not our best answer. Luckily, there are a few takeaways that you can apply to official questions.
1) What are you actually trying to strengthen here?
You want to strengthen that this law is the CAUSE of the decline in both general crimes and terrorism-related crimes, and that the law is having a greater effect on general crimes. The evidence already tells you that there has been a more significant percentage decrease in general crimes during the appropriate time period. You don't need to strengthen that evidence. You need to strengthen the idea that the law is the REASON for that change.
B, if anything, seems to be trying to strengthen the evidence - that there has been a change. But this is not needed. The evidence doesn't need help!
2) B actually doesn't even strengthen the evidence.
Why?
The prompt talks about a percentage decrease and B talks about a decrease in hard numbers. ALWAYS be very careful of the difference between percentage changes and hard number changes. When you have no idea of the underlying population size (total number of general crimes in the different years vs. total number of terrorism-related crimes in those years), you have no way of evaluating the magnitude of the change. And B just says "more" ... extremely weak language. That could be 1 more or 1 million more - you have no idea. (Note also that "more number of criminals" is horrible English and should give you a hint that this is likely a poor-quality question.)
It sounds like you thought that comparing percentage changes represented weak evidence ... I'm not sure why. That would only be weak if the conclusion was about hard numbers - but it's not.
Let me know if that helps.
General Discussion
14 Oct 2019, 08:35
Kudos
Bookmarks
POE:
B describes the effect of the new law
C is not relevant - even if terrorism increased globally, it doesn’t entirely explain why the new law resulted in better outcomes for general crime. It could be that while terrorism increased globally, it didn’t increase in Xanadu
D is not relevant because we don’t know what base level of general crime we started with.
So we’re left with A and E.
A indicates that some criminals behind bars are terrorists and still operating their activities from within the jail but this still doesn’t completely explain why terrorism has only dropped by 3%. It could be that the terrorists that are behind bars are propping the terrorism rate up but it’s more likely that there are just very few terrorists being arrested by the police.
So that’s where E has my pick - police are more focused on general crime and lack the resources/capability to catch more sophisticated terrorists without support from intel agencies.
Just an opinion: this question would be more unfairly biased in favor of people who have some exposure to how police operate vs intelligence agencies
Posted from my mobile device
B describes the effect of the new law
C is not relevant - even if terrorism increased globally, it doesn’t entirely explain why the new law resulted in better outcomes for general crime. It could be that while terrorism increased globally, it didn’t increase in Xanadu
D is not relevant because we don’t know what base level of general crime we started with.
So we’re left with A and E.
A indicates that some criminals behind bars are terrorists and still operating their activities from within the jail but this still doesn’t completely explain why terrorism has only dropped by 3%. It could be that the terrorists that are behind bars are propping the terrorism rate up but it’s more likely that there are just very few terrorists being arrested by the police.
So that’s where E has my pick - police are more focused on general crime and lack the resources/capability to catch more sophisticated terrorists without support from intel agencies.
Just an opinion: this question would be more unfairly biased in favor of people who have some exposure to how police operate vs intelligence agencies
Posted from my mobile device
