og 11th

This topic has expert replies
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:37 pm

og 11th

by shelby » Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:32 am
120.
The proposal to hire 10 new ploice officers in Middletown is quite foolish. There is usfficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers, but not the salaries of additional curt and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate.

whichi of the following, if true, will most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?

d.In most United States cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms.

e.Middletown's ration of polic officers to citizens has reached a level at wich an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime.

i chose d but the o.a is e T.T
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:22 am
Thanked: 7 times

by blue_lotus » Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:50 am
It is always a good idea to type in all the possible answers to evaluate better.

To weaken this argument we have to weaken the assuption which is that the increase in police officer would
Cause an increase in more arrests and convictions.

Option D states information which does not stricktly weaken the conclusion that increase in police will not increase caseload.
Consider that new police officers brings new cases , not all may result in conviction, but some may, resulting in increase in caseload. Which actually
Strengthens the conclusion.


Option E: It states that the ratio of Police to citizen has reached a level, where an increase in police will decrese the
Number of caseload of arrests, which actully weaken the assumption that increase of police would increase case load.
Hence E is the correct option.

Cheers,

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:15 am
if you want to weaken an argument, you need to look for the assumptions inherent in the argument, and try to strike one or more of them down.

the key assumption in this argument, as pointed out by blue_lotus, is that the additional officers will bring additional arrests and convictions. the rest of the argument is fairly airtight, so we need to strike down that assumption.

choice e strikes directly at the heart of that assumption: if there is a deterrent effect, then it is indeed illogical to assume that there will necessarily be additional arrests/convictions, so the argument falls apart.

choice d is irrelevant to middletown's situation in general; it merely details a nationwide pattern which certainly allows for the possibility that additional officers will bring additional arrests.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:58 am

by peter.p.81 » Tue May 10, 2016 11:31 pm
i think B is the best answer case