In 2005, more citizens from the country of Monrovia migrated from Monr

Question

In 2005, more citizens from the country of Monrovia migrated from Monrovia to neighboring Abstania than during any prior year. In 2005, the number of reported violent crimes in Abstania increased dramatically over 2004. The unavoidable conclusion is that Monrovians who migrated from Monrovia to Abstania were responsible for this increase.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most seriously weaken the claim that Monrovians were responsible for the increase in violent crime in Abstania during 2005?

(A) Each year more violent criminals are apprehended in Abstania than in Monrovia.

(B) During 2005, more violent crimes were reported in Abstania than in Monrovia.

(C) In 2005, no Monrovians migrated from either Monrovia or Abstania to any country other than Monrovia or Abstania.

(D) In 2005, the number of unreported violent crimes in Abstania increased as well.

(E) In 2005, fewer Monrovians migrated from Monrovia to Abstania than from Abstania to Monrovia.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

Rabab36 · Answer

GMATNinja

mikemcgarry   KarishmaB

experts can you pls explain i marked option A 
but option e is correct i think its out of scope

KarishmaB · Answer

Yes, I would think that (E) would make sense if we were given that population increase due to the migration is responsible for increased crimes. But the argument says that Monrovians who migrated are responsible without explaining how. Are they committing more crimes? Are they inciting others? Are resources falling short? We don't know. 
So (E) doesn't really make sense to me.

But neither does (A). Number of criminals apprehended does depend on the number of criminals but it also depends on the effectiveness of the police force. So any figures regarding criminals apprehended are out of scope for us.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The correct answer is (E).

The argument relies on the unstated assumption that Abstania’s Monrovian population either remained stable or increased during 2005. However, choice (E) provides that this population actually declined in 2005, despite the influx of Monrovians. Given that the number of Monrovians residing in Abstania decreased while the crime rate increased, choice (E) reduces the likelihood that it was Monrovians who were responsible for the increase in violent crime in 2005. Choice (A) would appear to weaken the argument by providing ostensible evidence that Abstanians are more likely than Monrovians to commit violent crimes. However, choice (A) does not account for the possibility that in Monrovia far fewer violent criminals are apprehended than in Abstania. In fact, the argument’s explicit reference to “reported” violent crimes underscores this possibility, which prohibits us from drawing any firm conclusion as to which group is more likely to be responsible for violent crimes.

In 2005, more citizens from the country of Monrovia migrated from Monr

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

In 2005, more citizens from the country of Monrovia migrated from Monr

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