Critical Reasoning

Citizens of Parktown are worried by the increased freq of serious crimes commited by local teenagers. In response the city government has instituted a series of measures designed to keep teenagers at home in the late evening. Even if the measures succeeded in keeping teenagers at home, however, they are unlikely to affect the problem that concerns citizens, since more crimes committed by local teenagers take place between 3p.m. and 6p.m.
Which of the following, if true, most substanitially weakens the argument?


A) Similiar measures adopted in other places have failed to reduce the number of teenagers on the streets in the late evening.
B) The crimes committed by teenagers in the afternoon are mostly small thefts and inconsequential vandalism
C) Teenagers are much less likely to commit serious crimes when they are at home than when they are not at home
D) Any decrease in the need for police patrols in the late evening would not mean that there could be more intensive patrolling in the afternoon
E)The schools in Parktown have introduced a number of after-school programs that will be available to teenagers until 6 p.m. on weekday afternoons.

IMO: B

IMO: E.

Could someone please provide OA for this problem?

Thanks.

isn't it C guys.!!!
IMO C.

The issue is 'serious crimes'. The solution proposed is to keep teens at home during late evenings. The author disagrees and talks about 'more crimes' committed b/w 3 - 6 pm. Now you need to weaken the argument.

Option B - says that during afternoon the crimes are small and inconsequential. So, they are not 'serious crimes'. Therefore, the 3 - 6 pm issues will not have an impact on 'serious crimes'.

So, the option is B

GmatKiss wrote:Citizens of Parktown are worried by the increased freq of serious crimes commited by local teenagers. In response the city government has instituted a series of measures designed to keep teenagers at home in the late evening. Even if the measures succeeded in keeping teenagers at home, however, they are unlikely to affect the problem that concerns citizens, since more crimes committed by local teenagers take place between 3p.m. and 6p.m.
Which of the following, if true, most substanitially weakens the argument?


A) Similiar measures adopted in other places have failed to reduce the number of teenagers on the streets in the late evening.
B) The crimes committed by teenagers in the afternoon are mostly small thefts and inconsequential vandalism
C) Teenagers are much less likely to commit serious crimes when they are at home than when they are not at home
D) Any decrease in the need for police patrols in the late evening would not mean that there could be more intensive patrolling in the afternoon
E)The schools in Parktown have introduced a number of after-school programs that will be available to teenagers until 6 p.m. on weekday afternoons.

+1 for B

Why cant it be E? Since schools will keep teenagers busy during the day time and in the evening time, policies of the government will ensure.

Please explain.

Thanks.

I am leaning towards E because B "kind of" strengthens the argument by talking about crimes may continue. We are provided no information about whether afternoon crimes can be considered serious or not.

E clearly states an alternate option for keeping teenagers away from crime.

I too believe answer should be E

+1 for B

E is wrong for Variety of reasons

It says "Weekday", that leaves the weekend for crime mongers....They would do crime then.
Is until 6 PM end of evening....Can't the crime be commited after 6 PM -- Assumption which is wrong...


What is OA??

Even i went for E guys, OA is B

GmatKiss wrote:Citizens of Parktown are worried by the increased freq of serious crimes commited by local teenagers. In response the city government has instituted a series of measures designed to keep teenagers at home in the late evening. Even if the measures succeeded in keeping teenagers at home, however, they are unlikely to affect the problem that concerns citizens, since more crimes committed by local teenagers take place between 3p.m. and 6p.m.
Which of the following, if true, most substanitially weakens the argument?


A) Similiar measures adopted in other places have failed to reduce the number of teenagers on the streets in the late evening.
B) The crimes committed by teenagers in the afternoon are mostly small thefts and inconsequential vandalism
C) Teenagers are much less likely to commit serious crimes when they are at home than when they are not at home
D) Any decrease in the need for police patrols in the late evening would not mean that there could be more intensive patrolling in the afternoon
E)The schools in Parktown have introduced a number of after-school programs that will be available to teenagers until 6 p.m. on weekday afternoons.

What is the Conclusion?

keeping teenagers at home, Unlikely to affect the problem that concerns citizens (problem Serious Crimes).

Answer should weaken this conclusion:
Take B --> Most of the crimes and thrift or tiny crimes.. ( they are not serous crimes)
that means .. serious crimes will happen in the late evenings..

i.e means Likely to affect the problem (.. No serious crimes.. (weaken)


choice E:

after-school programs that will be available to teenagers until 6 p.m.

Nowhere mention that teenagers all or most of these teenagers will be joining this program.
Say for e.g. there are 100 teenagers
it is poosible that may be 50 teenagers not in programm are commiting serious crimes
it is poosible that may be 70 teenagers not in programm are commiting serious crimes
it is poosible that may be 5 teenagers not in programm are commiting serious crimes

So It may Strenthen the argument .. its not clear.


Choice B is better than E