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

Redeem

crimes

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 876
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:14 am
Thanked: 13 times

crimes

by ketkoag » Fri May 22, 2009 10:32 am
In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws was 645 crimes per 100,000 persons—about 50 percent higher than the average rate in the eleven states where strict gun-control laws have never been passed. Thus one way to reduce violent crime is to repeal strict gun control laws.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
(A) The annual rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws has decreased since the passage of those laws.
(B) In states with strict gun-control laws, few individuals are prosecuted for violating such laws.
(C) In states without strict gun-control laws, many individuals have had no formal training in the use of firearms.
(D) The annual rate of nonviolent crime is lower in states with strict gun-control laws than in states without such laws.
(E) Less than half of the individuals who reside in states without strict gun-control laws own a gun.


my reasoning not to select E is that if a person owns a gun, it doesn't mean that he/she may comit a crime..
please correct me if i am wrong..By the way, i narrowed down to A and E and then i applied the above reasoning to select A as the answer..
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:16 am
Location: San Francisco
Thanked: 14 times

by mbadrew » Fri May 22, 2009 11:09 am
The conclusion is that states with no strict gun control law have less crime, therefore, the gun control law should be repealed in all states.
A is the appropriate answer because it offers a rebuttle to the conclusion and it weakens the arguement.
E strenghtens the argument.
The rest don't make sense.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times
Followed by:1 members

by mehravikas » Mon May 25, 2009 7:34 pm
IMO - A
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:56 am

by Musicolo » Tue May 26, 2009 7:38 am
Should be pretty streight forward - A
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 3:55 pm
Thanked: 11 times
GMAT Score:740

by Domnu » Wed May 27, 2009 1:03 pm
IMO, A

(B) In states with strict gun-control laws, few individuals are prosecuted for violating such laws.

This would almost support the argument.

(C) In states without strict gun-control laws, many individuals have had no formal training in the use of firearms.

Irrelevant.

(D) The annual rate of nonviolent crime is lower in states with strict gun-control laws than in states without such laws.

Supports the argument.

(E) Less than half of the individuals who reside in states without strict gun-control laws own a gun.

Irrelevant.
Have you wondered how you could have found such a treasure? -T
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:03 am

by nicolette » Sun May 15, 2016 3:05 pm
Answer A seems to be logical one out of other answer choices
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1