Critical Reasoning

sam2304 wrote:Citizens of parktown are worried by the increased frequency of serious crimes committed by local teenagers. In response, the city government has instituted a series of measures designed to keep teenagers at home in the late evening. Even if the measures succeed in keeping teenagers at home, however, they are unlikely to affect the problem that concerns citizens, since most crimes committed by local teenagers take place between 3pm and 6pm.

Which of the following,if true, most substantially weakens the argument ?

1) Similar measures adopted in other places have failed to reduce the no of teenagers in the late evening
2) Crimes committed by teenagers in the afternoon are mostly small thefts and inconsequential vandalism.
3) teenagers are much less likely to commit serious crimes when they are at home than when they are not at home
4) Any decrease in the need for police patrols in late evening would not mean that there could be more intensive patrolling in the afternoon
5) The schools in parktown have introduced a number of after school programs that will be available to teenagers until 6pm on weekday afternoons

Please explain your pick.

Teenagers are causing trouble. Govt has taken measures to keep teenagers at home. -> This plan will not be effective since most crimes take place between 3 pm and 6 pm.

Now we are to weaken the above conc and prove the plan will work out well.

It says the schools have introduced programs to keep the teenagers busy till 6. So this weakens the argument right ? ? Am I going wrong somewhere ?

TheGraduate wrote:it would mean that the serious crimes are being committed by someone else. Serious crime would still continue if teenagers are committing petty crimes.
What am I missing?