The cities with the densest population have the highest ratio of polic

Question

The cities with the densest population have the highest ratio of police officers to citizens. Such cities also have the lowest rates of property crime without contact between perpetrator and victim. Thus maintaining a high ratio of police officers to citizens can serve as an effective deterrent to at least certain kinds of property crime.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

(A) The quality of training that police receive varies from city to city.
(B) High population density itself makes it difficult to commit a property crime that involves no contact between perpetrator and victim.
(C) Many nonviolent crimes in large cities are drug-related.
(D) A majority of the perpetrators of property crimes in densely populated cities are not apprehended by the police.
(E) Property crimes without contact between perpetrator and victim represent only a small proportion of overall crime.

PearlRay · Answer

"The cities with the densest population have the highest ratio of police officers to citizens. Such cities also have the lowest rates of property crime without contact between perpetrator and victim. Thus maintaining a high ratio of police officers to citizens can serve as an effective deterrent to at least certain kinds of property crime.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

(A) The quality of training that police receive varies from city to city.
(B) High population density itself makes it difficult to commit a property crime that involves no contact between perpetrator and victim.
(C) Many nonviolent crimes in large cities are drug-related.
(D) A majority of the perpetrators of property crimes in densely populated cities are not apprehended by the police.
(E) Property crimes without contact between perpetrator and victim represent only a small proportion of overall crime."

The premise mentions that cities with densest population have highest ratio of police to citizen ratio. They also happen to have the lowest rates of a certain type of property crime (i.e. without contact between victim and perpetrator).

The conclusion then stretches ahead to say that the high police to citizen ratio serves as a deterrent to atleast certain kinds of property crimes.

What is the logical gap required for this conclusion to hold true? or rather in what condition will this falsify? i.e. High police ratio may not serve as a deterrent? What if there is another cause governing the low property crime rate w/o contact between victim and perpetrator? Perhaps the citizens are active? or the laws are strict? or the punishments are severe?

So for the conclusion to hold true, we need to fill this gap by assuming that there is no other cause other than the high police to citizen ratio which leads to this low property crime rate (w/o contact between victim and perpetrator)

To weaken this we need to break this causal relation. Cause (high police ratio)---> low property crime rates (w/o contact between victim and perpetrator).

A) The quality of training that police receive varies from city to city. So what? Can the high police ratio still lead to the effect? Possible !
(B) High population density itself makes it difficult to commit a property crime that involves no contact between perpetrator and victim. Yes by changing the cause- it breaks the causal relation.
(C) Many nonviolent crimes in large cities are drug-related. OFS- The argument is about deterring atleast certain property crimes.
(D) A majority of the perpetrators of property crimes in densely populated cities are not apprehended by the police.- OFS- the majority may not be concerned with this certain type of property crime. 
(E) Property crimes without contact between perpetrator and victim represent only a small proportion of overall crime- Even if they do, how are we addressing the conclusion that high police to citizen ratio is at play ?

Correct Ans is B

creed4truth · Answer

"The cities with the densest population have the highest ratio of police officers to citizens. Such cities also have the lowest rates of property crime without contact between perpetrator and victim. Thus maintaining a high ratio of police officers to citizens can serve as an effective deterrent to at least certain kinds of property crime.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

(A) The quality of training that police receive varies from city to city.
(B) High population density itself makes it difficult to commit a property crime that involves no contact between perpetrator and victim.
(C) Many nonviolent crimes in large cities are drug-related.
(D) A majority of the perpetrators of property crimes in densely populated cities are not apprehended by the police.
(E) Property crimes without contact between perpetrator and victim represent only a small proportion of overall crime."

Don't know if the Q is supposed to seem this easy, but this is my approach:
Highly populated Cities = Great number of the PoPo
Such Cities have Low Property Crime Type W(No contact between Victim and Perpetrator)

Question Conclusion: 
More Police/Citizen Ratio = Lower Property Crime of certain Kind.(Kind of like saying More Cops = Less Crime)
 
B tells us that the population Density by itself makes it difficult for Low W

So the Conclusion of a Higher number of PoPos being the cause is weakened.

(A) The quality of training that police receive varies from city to city.  Training Quality has got nothing to do with Ratio of the parameters being the cause of low Crime 
(C) Many nonviolent crimes in large cities are drug-related Neither are we bothered about Non-violent Crimes nor Drugs being the cause of the same, we want Property Crime Type W 
(D) A majority of the perpetrators of property crimes in densely populated cities are not apprehended by the police. Out of Context 
(E) Property crimes without contact between perpetrator and victim represent only a small proportion of overall crime. Not bothered about what portion does Property Crime Type W represents

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation of this question-

Mind Map : Densely filled cities have highest police to citizen ratio -> they also have low rate of property crime without contact between both parties -> so, high police density can reduce some kinds of property crime.

Missing link:  Between low property crime of certain types and the deduction that high police density can deter some kinds of property crime.

Expectation from the correct answer choice:  To suggest that high police density is not the reason for low rates of certain kinds of property crime.

Choice A:  This answer choice goes beyond the scope of the argument by focusing on police training; moreover, it does not talk about property crime at all; as this answer choice does not weaken the conclusion, it is not a fine answer choice. 
 Choice B:  This answer choice provides an alternate reason (than high police density) for the low crime rate; by suggesting that the high population density in itself makes it tough for offenders to commit property crime without contact between perpetrator and victim, this answer choice shifts the cause away from police density; hence, it weakens the argument and is, therefore, a fine answer choice. 
 Choice C:  This answer choice goes beyond the scope of the argument by focusing on other crimes whereas the argument is clearly focusing on “certain kinds of property crimes”. Moreover, the argument is referring to “densely populated” cities and not large cities. This answer choice is incorrect as it does not weaken the causal connection between high police density and low crime rates of certain kinds.
 Choice D:  Trap. The majority of the perpetrators of property crimes may not be involved with these “certain kinds of property crime” under discussion in the argument. Furthermore, this answer choice, by suggesting that perpetrators of property crimes are so bold, contradicts the premise about low crime rates on the first place. 
 Choice E:  Whether the kinds of crime under discussion represent a small or large proportion of the overall crime does not help or hurt the argument as the focus is on the reason for the low rate of the kinds of crime and not the magnitude of their consequence. This answer choice does not make any relevant point to weaken the argument that high police to citizen ratio can deter “certain kinds of property crime”; hence, it is not the correct answer choice.

Hence, B is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of “Characteristics of a Weakening Statement on GMAT Critical Reasoning”, you may want to watch the following video (~3 minutes):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECTz36Zx8v8

All the best!
Experts' Global Team

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.

The cities with the densest population have the highest ratio of polic

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

The cities with the densest population have the highest ratio of polic

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