Hi Winner2013,

This item appears to be incomplete. I don't see a stem (e.g. Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in order to evaluate the argument?)

If you can provide that, you may get some feedback on this item.

All the best,
Will Langley

Senior GMAT Instructor
The Economist GMAT
https://econgm.at/gmatprep

Hi Will,

I am so sorry. copy -paste mistake

Here is the problem again -

Crimes are mainly committed by the young, and for
this reason merely increasing the number of police
officers or expenditures on police services has little
effect on reducing the crime rate. In fact, the only
factor associated with a crime-rate drop is a decrease
in the number of people in the community aged
fourteen to thirty.
The findings above can best serve as part of an
argument against
(A) the likelihood that any law enforcement program
will be effective in reducing the crime rate within
a short time
(B) increasing prison terms for young people found
guilty of crimes
(C) introducing compulsory military conscription for
people aged seventeen to nineteen
(D) raising the age at which students are permitted to
leave school
(E) a community's plan to increase the number of
recreational and educational activities in which young adults can participate

Winner2013 wrote: Crimes are mainly committed by the young, and for this reason merely increasing the number of police officers or expenditures on police services has little effect on reducing the crime rate. In fact, the only factor associated with a crime-rate drop is a decrease in the number of people in the community aged fourteen to thirty.
The findings above can best serve as part of an argument against
(A) the likelihood that any law enforcement program will be effective in reducing the crime rate within a short time
(B) increasing prison terms for young people found guilty of crimes
(C) introducing compulsory military conscription for people aged seventeen to nineteen
(D) raising the age at which students are permitted to leave school
(E) a community's plan to increase the number of recreational and educational activities in which young adults can participate

Most crimes committed by the young --> Increase in Police/Police services cant help with the reduction of the crime rate --> THE ONLY way to reduce crime rate is to reduce people between 14-30 (Assumption : They all die; they grow older and eventually stop committing crimes etc)

Restate the stem in simple words -->
The passage would help us oppose which of the following options:
(A) the likelihood that any law enforcement program will be effective in reducing the crime rate within a short time.
The passage states that expenditures on police services has little effect on reducing the crime rate so its pointless to create a new law enforcement program AS THE ONLY way to stop crimes from happening is to decrease the number of people aged between 14-30 (which is a long term solution). This is somewhat stated in the passage. Lets keep this for now.
(B) increasing prison terms for young people found guilty of crimes
Although this might help reduce the crime rate in an ideal world; our passage says nothing about increasing the prison term. Out of scope.
(C) introducing compulsory military conscription for people aged seventeen to nineteen
Only a subset of the group compulsorily participates, leaving out the people aged 20-30. This is out.
(D) raising the age at which students are permitted to leave school
Irrelevant to the passage.
(E) a community's plan to increase the number of recreational and educational activities in which young adults can participate
Close, but on further inspection of the passage text one can eliminate this choice on the basis of "increasing ... expenditures on police services". The passage does not mention recreational and educational activities.

[spoiler]Answer : A[/spoiler]

Regards,
Vivek

I know this is not SC, but how can it correct to say it's against "the likelihood that..." when A doesn't state how likely? It could be an extremely small likelihood that any law enforcement program will be effective which the passage actually agrees on by stating "has little effect"

AppleBees wrote:I know this is not SC, but how can it correct to say it's against "the likelihood that..." when A doesn't state how likely? It could be an extremely small likelihood that any law enforcement program will be effective which the passage actually agrees on by stating "has little effect"

I agree that the language here could be clearer, but I think that "likelihood," like "probability," takes on a neutral connotation on its own. Thus, arguing against the likelihood would be another way of saying that the argument minimizes the likelihood or probability that such an approach would work. It's more of a relative evaluation.

Also, solid explanation, mevicks.