Critical Reasoning

Since the inception of Project Safe Neighborhoods five years ago, which seeks to reduce armed robberies by convincing people to sell their guns to the municipal government, the number of armed robberies has decreased by ten percent nationwide. Simultaneously, there has been a decrease in the number of reports in which convicted criminals are found to be in possession of guns. It is clear that Project Safe Neighborhoods has convinced many individuals not to own guns and thus not to commit armed robberies.

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

1.The number of guns sold to the government in Project Safe Neighborhoods has been consistent throughout the five years that the program has been in existence.
2.Gun shop owners have reported a decline in patrons seeking to buy guns for legitimate purposes since the inception of the project.
3.Surveys suggest that the majority of people have not been impacted by gun crimes either before or after the inception of the Project Safe Neighborhoods program.
4.Five years ago, a law passed which restricts gun shop owners from selling guns to patrons without a one week waiting period and a background check.
5.Over the course of the last ten years, the number of individuals who commit gun crimes but evade arrest has not increased.

IMO 4

Given: Cause A -> Effect B

This could easily be weakened by showing that something else caused B

i.e Cause C (not A) -> Effect B

This is a causality problem. The stimulus asks us to believe that Project Safe Neighborhoods is responsible for the decline in "reports in which convicted criminals are found to be in possession of guns."

We want to show that there is an alternative cause for the decline in armed robberies.

D tells us that a "waiting period" and background check law was set up at the same time as "Safe Neighborhoods". By making it more difficult to get a gun, that law offers an alternative cause for the decline.

Remember, a weakener does not "disprove" a claim, only makes it less likely.

IMO D

IMO D very good question

IMO-D..definitely its a classic weakening question.

gud one ...........

Hello Mitch,

What's wrong with option C? If the number of guns being purchased itself has decreased, it's possible that the armed robbers are not getting enough guns to rob.

Thanks
Amit

gmat_for_life wrote:Hello Mitch,

What's wrong with option C? If the number of guns being purchased itself has decreased, it's possible that the armed robbers are not getting enough guns to rob.

Thanks
Amit

I suspect that you are referring to B:
Gun shop owners have reported a decline in patrons seeking to buy guns.
This option seems to STRENGTHEN the conclusion that Project Safe Neighborhoods has convinced many individuals not to own guns.
Since the correct answer choice must WEAKEN the conclusion, eliminate B.

Option 4..