number of crimes in city Y,

[abcgmat]

To decrease the number of crimes in city Y, the city's Police Commissioner proposed taking some police officers from low-crime districts of the city and moving them to high-crime districts of the city. His proposal is based on city Y crime data that show that the number of crimes in any district of the city decreases when additional police officers are moved into that district. The Police Commissioner's proposal depends on which of the following assumptions?
A) City X experienced a drastic reduction in crime after implementing a proposal similar to that proposed by the Police Commissioner of city Y.
b) The severity of crimes committed in any district of the city decreases when additional police officers are moved into that district.
c) The number of crimes committed in all high-crime districts of city Y is more than triple the number of crimes committed in all low-crime districts of city Y.
d) There are more low-crime districts than high-crime districts in city Y.
e) Districts of the city from which police officers are removed do not experience significant crime increases shortly after the removal of those officers.

Conclusion : To decrease the number of crimes in City Y, move the number of officers from low level crimes areas to high level.
Because in any city whenver the officers are moved the number of crimes in that city have decreased.

Logically negated conclusion: Even if you move the number of officer from low crime area to high crime area, the crime in Y will not decrease.

logically negated choice E:Districts of the city from which police officers are removed do experience significant crime increases shortly after the removal of those officers.

This situation is out of scope , as we are considering only when the officers are added the crime woulddecrease. what would happen if they are removed from city Y, is out of scope.

Can you explain why E is correct

[ice_rush]

negation of (E) reads: Districts of the city from which police officers are removed do experience significant crime increases shortly after the removal of those officers --- This trashes the conclusion and hence is the correct answer.


hope this helps!

[metallicafan]

+1 E

The main objective of the plan is to reduce the crime in the whole city.
If removing police officers in a district A (to reduce the crime in district B) will increase the crime in district A (because there are not police officers), then we are not reducing the crime in the city. We are just moving it from district B to district A.

[Gaurav 2013-fall]

Got E from POE

[abcgmat]

Hi,

Thank you all for posting your opinions , now I get it .
In City Y, there are some low crime districts and some high crime districts.
whenever police officers are moved to high crime district, crime is reduced

So conclusion is to reduce the number of crimes in Y, move the police officers to high crime district
C: If you move the police officers to high crime district, number of crimes in city y is reduced
LNC: Even if you move the police officers to high crime district, number of crimes in city y will not be reduced.

E:if officers are moved to high crime district, number of crimes will not significanlty increase in low crime district

LNE: if officers are moved to high crime district, number of crimes will significanlty increase in low crime district

Then the number of crimes in city Y will not descrese, the logically negated choice E attacks the conclusion and and supports logically negated conclusion,hence is assumption