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 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.
19 Oct 2021, 01:30
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:
45% (02:14) correct
55%
(02:05)
wrong
based on 532
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Police commissioner: Last year our city experienced a 15 percent decrease in the rate of violent crime. At the beginning of that year a new mandatory sentencing law was enacted, which requires that all violent criminals serve time in prison. Since no other major policy changes were made last year, the drop in the crime rate must have been due to the new mandatory sentencing law.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the police commissioner’s argument?
(A) Studies of many other cities have shown a correlation between improving economic conditions and decreased crime rates.
(B) Prior to the enactment of the mandatory sentencing law, judges in the city had for many years already imposed unusually harsh penalties for some crimes.
(C) Last year, the city’s overall crime rate decreased by only 5 percent.
(D) At the beginning of last year, the police department’s definition of “violent crime” was broadened to include 2 crimes not previously classified as “violent.”
(E) The city enacted a policy 2 years ago requiring that 100 new police officers be hired in each of the 3 subsequent years.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the police commissioner’s argument?
(A) Studies of many other cities have shown a correlation between improving economic conditions and decreased crime rates.
(B) Prior to the enactment of the mandatory sentencing law, judges in the city had for many years already imposed unusually harsh penalties for some crimes.
(C) Last year, the city’s overall crime rate decreased by only 5 percent.
(D) At the beginning of last year, the police department’s definition of “violent crime” was broadened to include 2 crimes not previously classified as “violent.”
(E) The city enacted a policy 2 years ago requiring that 100 new police officers be hired in each of the 3 subsequent years.
20 Oct 2021, 01:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
The police commissioner violates one of the Fox LSAT Ten Commandments here: Thou Shalt Not Confuse Correlation With Causation. The commissioner’s evidence is a correlation: the mandatory sentencing was enacted and the violent crime rate decreased at approximately the same time. The commissioner’s conclusion is causal: Therefore, the mandatory sentencing caused the drop in violent crime.
This isn’t a stupid hypothesis, but it’s far from proven. Any number of other things could have caused the drop in the crime rate, except for “other major policy changes,” which the commissioner says did not happen. My ideas are these: 1) Maybe the economy improved significantly, causing violent crime to go down. 2) Maybe a huge shipment of really good weed came in, and everyone was happily stoned at home playing video games all the time, causing violent crime to go down. 3) Maybe everyone got religion (or far more likely, maybe everyone got atheism) causing violent crime to go down. None of these are “major policy changes,” but any of them, if true, would provide an alternative explanation for the drop in the crime rate. We are asked to weaken the argument, so anything like these explanations could be a good answer.
A) This is a good start of a weakener—it’s similar to one of our predictions—but since we don’t know whether the economy improved in this particular city or not, I don’t see how this by itself is much of a weakener. If this was your objection to the commissioner, the commissioner might say, “Yeah, that’s true, but our economy is in the **** like never before.” We’re looking for something that provides the commissioner with no real retort. I doubt this is it.
B) This is another one that is close to a good answer, but it’s missing something. What if the judges in the city had been unusually harsh on speeding, and jaywalking, and littering… but not on violent crime? This would be a great answer if it was specifically about violent crime, but it’s not. So it’s probably a trap.
C) This would only seem to strengthen the argument, since it would show that violent crime (which was the subject of the mandatory sentencing law) went down more than the regular crime rate overall. We’re looking for a weakener, so this ain’t it.
D) This would also strengthen the argument, because if this is true then the actual crime rate went down even more than the 15 percent cited by the police commissioner. If you reversed this answer, and said, “The police department’s definition of ‘violent crime’ was narrowed,” then this would be a perfect answer. But that’s not what it says. I sure hope it’s E, or I’m going to feel stupid.
E) Okay, I like this one. If we’ve added a ton of new police officers on the street, then maybe it’s police deterrence that’s stopping the violent crime, rather than the mandatory sentencing law. The only trick here is that adding a ton of new police officers sounds like a “major policy change.” But that doesn’t matter, since the policy was enacted two years ago, which is before the timeframe the police commissioner claimed included no other major policy changes.
E is our answer.
General Discussion
19 Oct 2021, 02:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
Premise: A new mandatory sentencing law was enacted --- City experienced a 15 percent decrease in the rate of violent crime.
Conclusion : the drop in the crime rate must have been due to the new mandatory sentencing law.
Pre-think:
A good problem based on causality.
As soon as we see "causality" in the conclusion, we must think about "alternate causation" and "reverse causation".
As the sequence of the events are not simultaneous, this can't be a case of reverse causation.
Also, as the argument says "Since no other major policy changes were made last year", we must look for a factor that is not related to the policy and could have contributed to decrease in the rate of violent crime.
Let's look at the choices -
(A) Studies of many other cities have shown a correlation between improving economic conditions and decreased crime rates.
What happened in other cities is not important to this argument.
(B) Prior to the enactment of the mandatory sentencing law, judges in the city had for many years already imposed unusually harsh penalties for some crimes.
This choice says that since judges had already imposed harsh penalties, the idea behind the new mandatory sentencing law i.e. all violent criminals serve time in prison - is challenged. Hence, we can say that the law did not play important role in reducing the crime rate.
This implication weakens the argument. Let's hold on with it.
(C) Last year, the city’s overall crime rate decreased by only 5 percent.
Watch out the difference : overall crime rate Vs violent crime rate (in the scope).
(D) At the beginning of last year, the police department’s definition of “violent crime” was broadened to include 2 crimes not previously classified as “violent.”
If so, more number of crimes could be termed as violent ones. If the policy did not do anything, the crime rate will increase w.r.t last year. But, in reality, it has reduced by 15%. Thus, we can imply that the policy played some role to reduce the crime rate.
Not weakening. But, the choice is supporting (if at all).
(E) The city enacted a policy 2 years ago requiring that 100 new police officers be hired in each of the 3 subsequent years.
Thus, every year 100 new police officers are hired. This could help in reducing the crime rate.
This is in-line with the argument that "no other major policy changes were made last year" as these new officers are effect of the policy made 2 years back.
Thus, this choice offers "alternate causation" and weakens the argument.
Now, while choice B looks right, It has some flaw in its construction. It talks of - judges in the city had for many years already imposed unusually harsh penalties for some crimes.
Let's say there were penalties for some of the crimes.
- Were those penalties make the criminals stay in prison? Or were they just financial penalties?
We must watch out : penalties vs prison serving.
- "some" crimes don't include all the violent crimes and still the policy could contribute a lot.
Thus, choice E offering direct "alternate causation" is right answer.
IMO E
Conclusion : the drop in the crime rate must have been due to the new mandatory sentencing law.
Pre-think:
A good problem based on causality.
As soon as we see "causality" in the conclusion, we must think about "alternate causation" and "reverse causation".
As the sequence of the events are not simultaneous, this can't be a case of reverse causation.
Also, as the argument says "Since no other major policy changes were made last year", we must look for a factor that is not related to the policy and could have contributed to decrease in the rate of violent crime.
Let's look at the choices -
(A) Studies of many other cities have shown a correlation between improving economic conditions and decreased crime rates.
What happened in other cities is not important to this argument.
(B) Prior to the enactment of the mandatory sentencing law, judges in the city had for many years already imposed unusually harsh penalties for some crimes.
This choice says that since judges had already imposed harsh penalties, the idea behind the new mandatory sentencing law i.e. all violent criminals serve time in prison - is challenged. Hence, we can say that the law did not play important role in reducing the crime rate.
This implication weakens the argument. Let's hold on with it.
(C) Last year, the city’s overall crime rate decreased by only 5 percent.
Watch out the difference : overall crime rate Vs violent crime rate (in the scope).
(D) At the beginning of last year, the police department’s definition of “violent crime” was broadened to include 2 crimes not previously classified as “violent.”
If so, more number of crimes could be termed as violent ones. If the policy did not do anything, the crime rate will increase w.r.t last year. But, in reality, it has reduced by 15%. Thus, we can imply that the policy played some role to reduce the crime rate.
Not weakening. But, the choice is supporting (if at all).
(E) The city enacted a policy 2 years ago requiring that 100 new police officers be hired in each of the 3 subsequent years.
Thus, every year 100 new police officers are hired. This could help in reducing the crime rate.
This is in-line with the argument that "no other major policy changes were made last year" as these new officers are effect of the policy made 2 years back.
Thus, this choice offers "alternate causation" and weakens the argument.
Now, while choice B looks right, It has some flaw in its construction. It talks of - judges in the city had for many years already imposed unusually harsh penalties for some crimes.
Let's say there were penalties for some of the crimes.
- Were those penalties make the criminals stay in prison? Or were they just financial penalties?
We must watch out : penalties vs prison serving.
- "some" crimes don't include all the violent crimes and still the policy could contribute a lot.
Thus, choice E offering direct "alternate causation" is right answer.
IMO E
