My answer : C

What's the OA?

The answer is either A or C. I always have problems with assumption questions. Can someone help?

Thanks

What is the OA?

I eliminated A and C first

The questions says that
"¢ Crime is the same in both cities
"¢ There are more guns in Metro (per resident)
"¢ And more killings in Metro

The conclusion says
"¢ more guns is the cause of the higher suicide rate

Answer choices
A- This is outside of the scope...too specific.
C- The number...this doesn't matter. We are talking about percentages.

The other questions were tempting, because in there extremes they could change the conclusion. An assumption is something that needs to be true in order for the conclusion to be true

Finally, I chose D. If Clarksville had better emergency medical service, there could be fewer deaths just because the paramedics were able to prevent deaths.

Like I said the other two choices were tempting... I couldn't see a definite answer here.

+ 1 for C

although the ratio of violent crime to total population is about the same in clarksburgh and metroville,there are almost 15 percent more gun owners in metroville.The difference in gun ownership is the most logical explanation for the fact that there are 23 percent fewer homicide percent fewer homicides in clark. than metroville.

I was stuck between B and E for some reason and I choose B since if the gun owners in C.ville were a part of the himicide in metroville then the whole arguement falls apart.

@Jeffedwards - > I think you might have mistakenly read choice C. Option C states that C.ville DOES NOT have better facilites than metroville and hence I cannot understand how C can be the right option. Please clarify your logic if possible. Thanks.



Cheers

amazonviper wrote:

although the ratio of violent crime to total population is about the same in clarksburgh and metroville,there are almost 15 percent more gun owners in metroville.The difference in gun ownership is the most logical explanation for the fact that there are 23 percent fewer homicide percent fewer homicides in clark. than metroville.

I was stuck between B and E for some reason and I choose B since if the gun owners in C.ville were a part of the himicide in metroville then the whole arguement falls apart.

@Jeffedwards - > I think you might have mistakenly read choice C. Option C states that C.ville DOES NOT have better facilites than metroville and hence I cannot understand how C can be the right option. Please clarify your logic if possible. Thanks.



Cheers

Amazonviper: correct me if I'm wrong. The statement says that there were fewer homicides in Clarksville than in Metroville...because there are fewer guns in Clarksville. So the assumption could be that Clarksville DOES NOT have better emergency medical services...because if IT DID, then that would supply an alternate reason for the smaller homicide rate.

You thought similarly to me...I narrowed it down to B, D, & E, but chose E. I appreciate the question and would like to learn.

Budetta4, can you post the official answer now?

budetta4 wrote:although the ratio of violent crime to total population is about the same in clarksburgh and metroville,there are almost 15 percent more gun owners in metroville.The difference in gun ownership is the most logical explanation for the fact that there are 23 percent fewer homicide percent fewer homicides in clark. than metroville.

explanation rests on ana assumption that:

A most violent crime in metroville is connected to groups of organized criminals that generally do not operate in clark
B Clark and Metro are far enough apart that crime from one city does not directly impact the other
C number of criminals in M. is not larger than the number in C.
D C. does not have significantly better emergency medical service than M.
E firearm ammunition is as easy to obtain in C as it is in M

Keyword here is 'difference in gun ownership'.
The argument relies on the premise that the 'difference in gun ownership' is the most logical explanation for fewer homicides in clark than metro. This means the author assumes that gun can be obtained easily in clark as it is in Metro. (E) correctly points out to this assumption. Hence (E) is correct.

what's the OA?

I chose E too.

If the gun owners of M city are committing crimes in C then the argument will fall apart.

What OA please?

I was stuck between C and E but both don't seem essential to the argument according to me.

If you negate E, i.e. it is not as easy to obtain guns in C as it is in M then also the argument holds that difference in gun ownership is the most logical explanation for higher percentage of homicide cases. In fact negating this argument will strengthen the given argument. Pls let me know if I'm missing out on something here.

Can someone pls confirm OA and source?

Request some expert to help with this one.

Regards.

You are trying to connect more guns to more homicides.


A) Doesn't matter who does the crime
B) Doesn't do anything to show where the gun crimes/homicides are committed
C) We are not talking about the number of criminals, just gun ownership
D) Too big a step in logic to assume that the reason for less homicide is they save more people
E) If ammunition is as easy to obtain in both places then more guns will equal more deaths. This is the only way to make the 'logical' connection that the guns influence the difference in homicides. Go to extremes. If there was no ammunition then the guns could not be used.

although the ratio of violent crime to total population is about the same in clarksburgh and metroville,there are almost 15 percent more gun owners in metroville.The difference in gun ownership is the most logical explanation for the fact that there are 23 percent fewer homicide percent fewer homicides in clark. than metroville.

explanation rests on ana assumption that:

A most violent crime in metroville is connected to groups of organized criminals that generally do not operate in clark
B Clark and Metro are far enough apart that crime from one city does not directly impact the other
C number of criminals in M. is not larger than the number in C.
D C. does not have significantly better emergency medical service than M.
E firearm ammunition is as easy to obtain in C as it is in M


Answer is definitely E. Yes got it. C tries its best to trick you..

The stimulus in its premise already states that the crime rate between the two cities is constant irrespective of the population...

Hence that parameter is already kept constant...

Let us say the two cities M and C under consideration...

City M has more criminals but the frequency of crime by each of the criminal is only 1.

City C has less no. of criminals but the frequency of crime by each of the criminal is much more than 1.

Hence no. of criminals in this argument in this question is besides the point.

We just need to focus on the 15% more gun ownership causing the 23% more crime...

That thing is supported by the option E.

When I say that the gun control law in both the cities are the same or the supply of the ammunition in both the cities is the same, then the 15% more gun ownership rights actually causes 23% more crime...

A bit difficult to understand but this is the only answer that is closest...

Hope this helped!!!