BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Street crime can be averted through regulations mandating

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 2:52 am

Street crime can be averted through regulations mandating

by nasheen » Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:43 am
Street crime can be averted through regulations mandating

Street crime can be averted through regulations mandating the lighting of streetlights during daytime. However, daytime visibility is worse in nations farther from the equator, so obviously such regulations would be more successful in averting crime there. Actually, the only nations that adopted such regulations are farther from the equator than the continental United States.

Which of the following conclusions could be most properly drawn from the information given to the left?

A)Bystanders in the continental United States who were near lit streetlights during the day would be just as likely to become victims of a crime as would bystanders who were not near lit streetlights.

B)Inadequate daytime visibility is the single most important factor in street crime in numerous nations that are located farther from the equator than is the continental United States.

C)In nations that have daytime streetlight regulations, the percentage of street crime that happens in the daytime is greater than in the continental United States.

D) Nations that have daytime streetlight regulations probably have less incidents of street crime annually than occur within the continental United States.

E)Daytime streetlight regulations would probably do less to avert street crime in the continental United States than they do in the nations that have the regulations.


E
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:27 am
Thanked: 48 times
Followed by:16 members

by alex.gellatly » Sat Sep 01, 2012 6:00 pm
nasheen wrote: Street crime can be averted through regulations mandating the lighting of streetlights during daytime. However, daytime visibility is worse in nations farther from the equator, so obviously such regulations would be more successful in averting crime there. Actually, the only nations that adopted such regulations are farther from the equator than the continental United States.

Which of the following conclusions could be most properly drawn from the information given to the left? The argument says that street lights avert crime. The farther the country is from the equator, the better it works at averting crime. The argument also says that only countries further north have adopted these regulations. Our job is to find an conclusion which supports these statements. Lets look at the choices:

A)Bystanders in the continental United States who were near lit streetlights during the day would be just as likely to become victims of a crime as would bystanders who were not near lit streetlights. This is not what the argument is saying at all. Argument states that streetlights avert crime.

B)Inadequate daytime visibility is the single most important factor in street crime in numerous nations that are located farther from the equator than is the continental United States. We cannot infer from the information that this is the single most important factor.

C)In nations that have daytime streetlight regulations, the percentage of street crime that happens in the daytime is greater than in the continental United States. We cannot infer such information. The argument made no statements about day and night.

D) Nations that have daytime streetlight regulations probably have less incidents of street crime annually than occur within the continental United States. Again, we cannot infer this. Perhaps there are many other reasons (besides streetlights) which cause crime to be high or low. The argument does not address this issue.

E)Daytime streetlight regulations would probably do less to avert street crime in the continental United States than they do in the nations that have the regulations. This is the correct answer because it is very clearly supported by the passage. The argument states that the further north you are the better it works. It also states that the countries which have the regulation are further north than the US. Therefore, we CAN infer that streetlight regulations would do less to avert crime in the US than in thous counties.
Remember in find the conclusion questions we need to find and answer which is DIRECTLY supported by the evidence given. DO NOT find some grand conclusion. Rather, find a boring one which ever peice can be supported.
Let me know if this helps
A useful website I found that has every quant OG video explanation:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/useful-websi ... tml#475231
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 2:52 am

by nasheen » Sat Sep 01, 2012 9:48 pm
alex.gellatly wrote:
nasheen wrote: Street crime can be averted through regulations mandating the lighting of streetlights during daytime. However, daytime visibility is worse in nations farther from the equator, so obviously such regulations would be more successful in averting crime there. Actually, the only nations that adopted such regulations are farther from the equator than the continental United States.

Which of the following conclusions could be most properly drawn from the information given to the left? The argument says that street lights avert crime. The farther the country is from the equator, the better it works at averting crime. The argument also says that only countries further north have adopted these regulations. Our job is to find an conclusion which supports these statements. Lets look at the choices:

A)Bystanders in the continental United States who were near lit streetlights during the day would be just as likely to become victims of a crime as would bystanders who were not near lit streetlights. This is not what the argument is saying at all. Argument states that streetlights avert crime.

B)Inadequate daytime visibility is the single most important factor in street crime in numerous nations that are located farther from the equator than is the continental United States. We cannot infer from the information that this is the single most important factor.

C)In nations that have daytime streetlight regulations, the percentage of street crime that happens in the daytime is greater than in the continental United States. We cannot infer such information. The argument made no statements about day and night.

D) Nations that have daytime streetlight regulations probably have less incidents of street crime annually than occur within the continental United States. Again, we cannot infer this. Perhaps there are many other reasons (besides streetlights) which cause crime to be high or low. The argument does not address this issue.

E)Daytime streetlight regulations would probably do less to avert street crime in the continental United States than they do in the nations that have the regulations. This is the correct answer because it is very clearly supported by the passage. The argument states that the further north you are the better it works. It also states that the countries which have the regulation are further north than the US. Therefore, we CAN infer that streetlight regulations would do less to avert crime in the US than in thous counties.
Remember in find the conclusion questions we need to find and answer which is DIRECTLY supported by the evidence given. DO NOT find some grand conclusion. Rather, find a boring one which ever peice can be supported.
Let me know if this helps
Thanks for detailed explanation
i was basically confuse with "the only nations that adopted such regulations are farther from the equator than the continental United States "
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1