Last visit was: 14 May 2026, 08:00 It is currently 14 May 2026, 08:00
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
rockubabe
User avatar
Joined: 21 May 2010
Last visit: 03 Mar 2018
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
110
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 14
Kudos: 110
Many people think that the only way to remedy the problem of 22 May 2010, 15:33
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
N
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

40% (01:26) correct 60% (00:32) wrong based on 12 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Many people think that the only way to remedy the problem of rime is by increasing the number of police officers, but recent statistics show that many major cities had similar ratios of police officers to citizens, yet diverged widely in their crime rates.

the statistics cited function in the argument to

(A) establish that the number of police officers does not need to be increased
(B) illustrate the need for increasing the number of police officers in major cities
(C) prove that there are factors other than the number of police officers that are more important in reducing the crime rate
(D) demonstrate that there is no relation between the number of police officers and the crime rate
(E) suggest that the number of police officers is not the only influence on the crime rate

Smart people, please help. I'm an idiot.



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
User avatar
dalmba
User avatar
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Last visit: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 84
Own Kudos:
80
Given Kudos: 8
Location: Halifax, Canada
Concentration: Social Media / Marketing
Schools:Dalhousie School of Business (Corporate Residency MBA)
GPA: 3.7
Posts: 84
Kudos: 80
Many people think that the only way to remedy the problem of 22 May 2010, 15:48
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
E - here's why:
rockubabe
Many people think that the only way to remedy the problem of rime is by increasing the number of police officers, but recent statistics show that many major cities had similar ratios of police officers to citizens, yet diverged widely in their crime rates.

the statistics cited function in the argument to

First you have to understand what the question is asking you to do. It's asking what role did "recent statistics show that many major cities had similar ratios of police officers to citizens, yet diverged widely in their crime rates" have in this argument? The word "but" preceding the big sentence implies that the statistics were sort of saying "wait now hold on." When you read the statement in its entirely you should get that sense.

(A) establish that the number of police officers does not need to be increased [color=#BF0000All the stats established in the context of the argument is "that many major cities had similar ratios of police officers to citizens, yet diverged widely in their crime rates." Nothing about what to do about police officer numbers.[/color]

(B) illustrate the need for increasing the number of police officers in major cities This is just another way of saying the opposite of A. We tossed out A because it said the stats were providing advice on what to do about the police numbers. They aren't.

(C) prove that there are factors other than the number of police officers that are more important in reducing the crime rate "Prove" is a huge flag. Very strong language... 1) stats rarely "prove" anything. They are probability by definition, and "probable" isn't proof. 2) "more important": the wording of this sentence wants to lure you in because it's actually closer to the point than A or B. The stats ARE implying that police numbers aren't telling the whole story. That much should be clear. But it says nothing to the effect of HOW important the number is. It could still be the most important.

(D) demonstrate that there is no relation between the number of police officers and the crime rate This is just a silly notion and out of scope. This is a very broad claim... yet the discussion is only about major cities. "No relation" is too strong as well.

(E) suggest that the number of police officers is not the only influence on the crime rate We're left with this, and it's correct. The stats can really only suggest (strongly suggest in this case), not prove or demonstrate. By this point in our reasoning, especially considering the points we made in rejecting C, this should easily stand out. The stats say that the number of police does not have a direct relationship with the crime rates in major cities. It's not +1 cop, -1 crime since the ratios are out of whack in different cities. So there must be at least something else at play here (mobster population? climate? standard of police training?).

Smart people, please help. I'm an idiot.
Show more
User avatar
PTK
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Last visit: 06 Oct 2022
Posts: 1,135
Own Kudos:
2,220
Given Kudos: 622
Status:mission completed!
GPA: 3.77
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 1,135
Kudos: 2,220
Many people think that the only way to remedy the problem of 22 May 2010, 15:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rockubabe
Many people think that the only way to remedy the problem of rime is by increasing the number of police officers, but recent statistics show that many major cities had similar ratios of police officers to citizens, yet diverged widely in their crime rates.

the statistics cited function in the argument to

(A) establish that the number of police officers does not need to be increased
(B) illustrate the need for increasing the number of police officers in major cities
(C) prove that there are factors other than the number of police officers that are more important in reducing the crime rate
(D) demonstrate that there is no relation between the number of police officers and the crime rate
(E) suggest that the number of police officers is not the only influence on the crime rate

Smart people, please help. I'm an idiot.
Show more


It is D.
User avatar
rockubabe
User avatar
Joined: 21 May 2010
Last visit: 03 Mar 2018
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
110
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 14
Kudos: 110
Many people think that the only way to remedy the problem of 22 May 2010, 19:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The OA is E. Thanks dalmba!



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7393 posts
AbhishekP220108
564 posts
bhanu29
368 posts