A recent report compared the crime figures of today with those of 200

Question

A recent report compared the crime figures of today with those of 200 years ago. The report showed that today, the proportion of people who break the law is 22% lower than that of 200 years ago. It can be deduced that people are more morally aware today than people were 200 years ago.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument's conclusion?

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument's conclusion?

A. Many actions that were considered morally acceptable 200 years ago have been criminalized by modern legal systems

B. Today, morals are taught in schools, and since more children are educated, immoral behavior is decreasing.

C. Some people consider certain illegal acts as not being immoral.

D. Modern methods for controlling crime have been implemented so that less of the taxpayer's money is now spent on the penal system.

E. Reports analyzing the crime figures of certain time periods are always conducted by a team of government and private researchers.

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

Priyank1905 · Answer

A recent report compared the crime figures of today with those of 200 years ago. The report showed that today, the proportion of people who break the law is 22% lower than that of 200 years ago. It can be deduced that people are more morally aware today than people were 200 years ago.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument's conclusion?

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument's conclusion?

A. Many actions that were considered morally acceptable 200 years ago have been criminalized by modern legal systems

B. Today, morals are taught in schools, and since more children are educated, immoral behavior is decreasing.

C. Some people consider certain illegal acts as not being immoral.

D. Modern methods for controlling crime have been implemented so that less of the taxpayer's money is now spent on the penal system.

E. Reports analyzing the crime figures of certain time periods are always conducted by a team of government and private researchers.

According to me the answer should be A.

vanshikajain1606 · Answer

I believe it should be A. 
 A. Many actions that were considered morally acceptable 200 years ago have been criminalized by modern legal systems -  This seems to be a new information which shows why there might be a discrepancy in concluding that "people are more morally aware today than people were 200 years ago". If there are more actions considered as crime now, more people would be considered as criminals compared to 200 years ago on doing the same thing.

PeanutButter429 · Answer

If (A) were true, it would actually mean: Even though more things are illegal now, fewer people commit crimes. Which implies an even stronger case that morality improved.
 
Could be (D) as it gives an  alternative  reason to lower crime rates.

But then again this question is a bit weird so I hope someone could clarify. I just don't think any of the answers are,  it.

JackyJan · Answer

I agree with  PeanutButter429

Option (A) is strengthening the argument not weakening it imo - If today actions that were not penalized in the past, are penalized -> this would lead to a higher punishment rate, thus more people breaking the law

But the argument says that the rate dropped -> So the rate dropped ALTHOUGH people can be punished because of more actions today -> this would only hold if people dont commit those crimes -> thus they have to be morally more aware

So it cant be (A) & this leaves me only with (D) as the others are clearly not correct

(D) -> Less controlling -> crime rate dropped because people are not punished -> An alternative explanation for the rate drop -> Common pattern in weakening questions -> finding another variable that could be the reason

arushi118 · Answer

Same for me - Cannot quite understand how C is correct, as C says: some people think that illegal acts are moral.
My reasoning: proportion of ppl who break the law have become lesser -> so illegal acts have become lesser -> so even if some people think that illegal acts are moral how can we say that the proportion of people who are moral are more or less just on this basis.

Bunuel  can you please help with this.

miag · Answer

You're right on A) strengthening rather than weakening the conclusion which is why we can safely reject it
I think there are some flaws in this reasoning: first of all proportion of people breaking the law being less doesnt equate to illegal acts becoming lesser as we dont know the total people and how it compares to 200 years ago. 
D) is completely irrelevant - we have no link between the modern methods and people's moral awareness so we cannot ascertain the impact of this option on the conclusion and whether it weakens or strengthens it. 
C) Lets break this down - this says that some people consider illegal acts as not immoral - meaning they think it’s acceptable or morally fine to commit certain illegal acts. This breaks the conclusion because it implies that the lower proportion is not necessarily due to higher morality among people.

Hope this helps!

Dishg · Answer

The core assumption in this question is they treat breaking the law = immoral behavior and that crime rates reflect morality. So if fewer people break the law, they must be more moral.
and we need to weaken this by showing that the lower crime rate doesn’t necessarily mean greater morality.

In option C: if something can be illegal without being immoral, then changes in the rate of law-breaking tell us nothing about moral awareness.

Bhumit07 · Answer

Option (A) I think should be right : 
let's See how ?

"Many actions that were considered morally acceptable 200 years ago have been criminalized by modern legal systems."

This means:

Today MORE things are illegal.

So even if moral awareness stayed the same, the crime rate comparison becomes meaningless, because the definition of “breaking the law” changed.

Therefore, lower crime rates today do not prove greater moral awareness.

This directly attacks the logic linking crime rates to morality.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

A recent report compared the crime figures of today with those of 200 years ago. The report showed that today, the proportion of people who break the law is 22% lower than that of 200 years ago. It can be deduced that people are more morally aware today than people were 200 years ago.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument's conclusion?

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument's conclusion?

A. Many actions that were considered morally acceptable 200 years ago have been criminalized by modern legal systems

Incorrect.

To solve this Conclusion Weakening question, first break down the argument. The first two sentences contain premises which provide factual data; the last sentence uses the conclusion word deduced so it's the argument's conclusion:

Premise A: a report compared today's crime figures with those of 200 years ago
 +
Premise B: today, fewer people break the law than did people 200 years ago
 =
Conclusion: people today are more moralistic than people were 200 years ago

Possible assumption: the law is in direct correlation with the peoples' morals

Weakening Data: ?

You are required to find data that weakens the conclusion that today people are more moralistic today than people once were. The correct answer could be one that exposes the argument's assumption.

This answer choice strengthens the conclusion because it supports the idea that standards of morality have changed, and that current standards are higher. However, you were supposed to weaken this conclusion.

Comparing the crime levels of different settings is irrelevant to our task of weakening the conclusion since it doesn't really say anything about the moral aspect of the argument. We need to focus on the argument, and find a statement that opposes the author's conclusion that people are more morally aware in today's world.

B. Today, morals are taught in schools, and since more children are educated, immoral behavior is decreasing.

Incorrect.

This answer choice strengthens the conclusion, but you are required to weaken it. Explaining why today people are more morally aware, directly supports the conclusion that the level of morality is higher than it once was.

C. Some people consider certain illegal acts as not being immoral.

This answer choice weakens the argument's assumption. It does so by logically separating morals from law. If some people consider an illegal act as something that to them is not immoral, then we cannot logically link legality with morality. Once these two concepts have been separated, the conclusion that an increase in one concept causes an increase in another is weakened.

D. Modern methods for controlling crime have been implemented so that less of the taxpayer's money is now spent on the penal system.

Incorrect.

This answer choice neither weakens nor strengthens the conclusion. The financial side of the penal system and the taxpayer's money are both issues that don't really say anything about the moral aspect of the conclusion.

E. Reports analyzing the crime figures of certain time periods are always conducted by a team of government and private researchers.

Incorrect.

This answer choice neither weakens nor strengthens the conclusion because the accuracy of the report is not in question and so the identity of its writers is irrelevant. Since the report is presented in a premise, it should be considered as factual information.

kosukhov · Answer

Hello everyone!

To be honest I feel that a low success rate on that question is not due to its difficulty but due to its low quality.

I believe D (even though it's not ideal) does a better job here than C.

The conclusion says: Because the proportion of people who break the law is lower today, people are more morally aware than 200 years ago.

So the argument assumes: Lower crime rate >> higher moral awareness.

Answer choice C might show that for some people law ≠ morality, but it doesn’t say whether this was more true now or more true 200 years ago. It doesn’t say anything about the proportion of people who break the law in either era. It doesn’t give us a new, non-moral cause for the decrease in lawbreakers.

Choice D on the other side suggests that modern crime-control methods (e.g. surveillance, policing, prevention) have been implemented.

So we have a clear new explanation "modern crime control >> fewer people commit crimes" in D and saying that "some people consider" that illegal isn't equal to immoral in C.

To me D is casting more doubt.

What do you think?

miag · Answer

Hi,

I would say focus on the metric in such options.

What are we looking for? Moral awareness/ morality 
What option D) is talking about? It’s about spending, not about crime or lawbreaking. D) in this way becomes off-topic and doesn't explain the change.

Hope this helps!

A recent report compared the crime figures of today with those of 200

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A recent report compared the crime figures of today with those of 200

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