city official got stumped

would go with C

A. weakens. presumably better quality officers were chosen, so the decline in downtown businesses may not have been due to decline in size of police force

B. weakns. the downtown businesses are experiencing results against the trend in other parts of the town. may not be the effect in the decline in size of police force. some other factor may be at play

C. the number of people in downtown is out of scope.

D. weakens. the downtown businesses are catching up with the trend in other parts of the town. may not be the effect in the decline in size of police force. some other factor may be at play

E. weakens. the decrease in the size of the police force may not impact the downtown businesses, as some of officers serve both downtown and uptown.

actually, i think i would go with E.

with C, you could try negating it and would get "no. of people has decreased", which would support the city official's recommendation. So, if the population is the same, then that eliminates a possible reason and hence can be used to criticize i.e "no. of ppl are the same, how can u decrease police personnel"

with E, that could've been the case before as well. Maybe they patrol outside for only a short time. Just becuase they patrol both doesn't mean that they shouldn't be decreased.

Any thoughts?

I think A

I would go with A

A-- Standards does not effect the conclusion the police officers will have impact on the business

B --Weakens the conclusion

C-- Relationship between one of the premise’s 20%reduction of police officers for same number of people--weakens assuming that police officers are related with business

D -- Weakens

E --Weakens

What is the OA?

Argument

City official
CCLN: revitalize business in district --> increase number of police patrolling district during business hours.

3 years ago
P1. total size of police force 20% decrease.
P2. retail businesses declined steadily.

CCLN analysis (sufficient-necessary relation)

revitalization --> increase in the number
No increase in the number --> no revitalization.

premises should lead to the conclusion, now we need to look for gaps in the argument.
1. let us say P1 caused P2.
2. total number of the patrol men in the district did change (assumption) with the decrease.
3. if this is so then it means that increase in the number should cause revitalization.

So this boils down to a cause and effect relation.

So, the conclusion is increase in the police patrol should cause revitalization and revitalization would be possible only through increase in the number.

A- does not support the conclusion.
B- does not support the conclusion.
C- does not support the conclusion
D- let us say it does not effect at best.
E- strengthens the conclusion.

I think the answer is D[/spoiler]

it a close call between A and E. but i feel E is more appropriate

a. Two years ago, the city established more rigorous standards for the retention and hiring of its police officers. [this indirectly means that we have more efficient officers now ]

b. New businesses offering products or services similar to those in the district have emerged outside the district recently.[ when already products are available there is no added incentive for people from outside district to come for shopping]

c. The number of people who reside in the district has not changed significantly over the last three years. [people remain same. no reason is mentioned on why people will buy more goods or business will increase ]

d. Businesses operating in the city but outside the district have experienced declining revenues during the last three years. [there is decline in business revenue in the city. no link on how police increase might help in increasing business]

e. Some of the city's police officers patrol areas outside as well as inside the district.[this does not talk about business. Also since some police officers go in and out of district, by new additions we can probably have people who can support the city officials argument]

What's the source?

I don't have a good handle on this one. Can someone explain the differences between A and E?

IMO A

osirus0830 wrote:I don't have a good handle on this one. Can someone explain the differences between A and E?

I see it now. Its A

E weakens it because by the police officers patrolling other areas, it means they spend less time patrolling within the shopping district.

awrite!
i first thought of E
but then i was like no it is giving a reason as to why this recommendation is required. coz of the 20% shortage of policemen and hence the decline in the retail bussinesses.

first i tried weakening all the arguments but there was this one argument which would actually strengthen the conclusion of increasing the # of police officials.

the question says which of the following would weaken the conclusion EXCEPT ... = find the one that strengthens the conclusion!

But then E does support the conclusion that since the cops are patroling the areas o/s the district as well - WE SHOULD INCREASE THE # of police officials. = supporting the conclusion = E

i'd go with E

not sure though :-S
but yes E