Conclusion:
the measures are unlikely to affect the problem that concerns citizens, since more crimes committed by local teenagers take place between 3p.m. and 6p.m

We have to weaken this conclusion:

A) Similiar measures adopted in other places have failed to reduce the number of teenagers on the streets in the late evening.

High number of teenagers does not mean high crime rate!

B) The crimes committed by teenagers in the afternoon are mostly small thefts and inconsequential vandalism

Crime is crime and it does not weaken the conclusion that measures are ineffective.

C) Teenagers are much less likely to commit serious crimes when they are at home than when they are not at home

Reiteration of the premise

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

does this weaken the conclusion??

No


Read E carefully

)

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.

Teenagers are busy till 6pm (in school) and after that they go home and are busy there,thanks to the program,so when will they get time to commit crime!!

So the measures are effective!

Answer E

Looks like a shift in scope.

My paraphrase of the argument:

"Because more crimes committed by local teenagers take place between 3p.m. and 6pm, the curfew measures are unlikely to affect the problem (increased freq of SERIOUS crimes committed by local teenagers) that concerns citizens."

So the premise, as it stands, talks about crime, the conclusion talks only about serious crime.

The new weakened argument would look something like this "curfew measures are likely to affect the problem since SERIOUS crimes are committed later in the evening."

A) Time/Frequency of serious crime is of interest NOT the number of teenagers on the streets.
B) BINGO! If the crimes committed by teenagers in the afternoon are mostly small thefts and inconsequential vandalism, then the crimes committed later are more SERIOUS.
C) Strengthens not weakens
D) Irrelevant
E) Irrelevant -- just because these programs are available, it doesn't mean that any teenagers use them or that they have an impact on time/frequency of serious crime.

the best answer is E as it weakens the conclusion of the argument.

Conclusion: The curfew measures are unlikely to affect the problem of "increased freq. fo serious crimes".
Reasoning: More crimes are committed between 3pm to 6pm
Clearly there is a shift in scope.

Counter argument: Crimes committed between 3pm to 6pm are not of a great concern. Hence, it is clearly not a reason to condemn curfew measures as ineffective. Note: We only want to weaken the argument and are not bothered about strengthening. Also "whether curfew measures affect the problem " is the conclusion instead of "whether curfew measures really solve the problem" or "whether curfew measures really do not solve the problem"

A) Similiar measures adopted in other places have failed to reduce the number of teenagers on the streets in the late evening. ----- no clue whether other places did have more crimes commited during 3pm - 6pm. Out of scope
B) The crimes committed by teenagers in the afternoon are mostly small thefts and inconsequential vandalism ---- CORRECT
C) Teenagers are much less likely to commit serious crimes when they are at home than when they are not at home ---- Gives an alternate path for the conclusion. Does not weaken the current reasoning.
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 ---- addresses the reverse path of the argument
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. ---- Additional information to SEEMINGLY strengthen that the policy will be effective during WEEKDAYS, but does not weaken the current reasoning.

Lesson:
It is as important to identify the premise/reasoning as it is to identify the conclusion in an argument, esp. in a "weaken / strnegthen argument" type of questions.

Conclusion: The curfew measures are unlikely to affect the problem of "increased freq. fo serious crimes".
Reasoning: More crimes are committed between 3pm to 6pm
Clearly there is a shift in scope.

Counter argument: Crimes committed between 3pm to 6pm are not of a great concern. Hence, it is clearly not a reason to condemn curfew measures as ineffective. Note: We only want to weaken the argument and are not bothered about strengthening. Also "whether curfew measures affect the problem " is the conclusion instead of "whether curfew measures really solve the problem" or "whether curfew measures really do not solve the problem"

A) Similiar measures adopted in other places have failed to reduce the number of teenagers on the streets in the late evening. ----- no clue whether other places did have more crimes commited during 3pm - 6pm. Out of scope
B) The crimes committed by teenagers in the afternoon are mostly small thefts and inconsequential vandalism ---- CORRECT
C) Teenagers are much less likely to commit serious crimes when they are at home than when they are not at home ---- Gives an alternate path for the conclusion. Does not weaken the current reasoning.
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 ---- addresses the reverse path of the argument
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. ---- Additional information to SEEMINGLY strengthen that the policy will be effective during WEEKDAYS, but does not weaken the current reasoning.

Lesson:
It is as important to identify the premise/reasoning as it is to identify the conclusion in an argument, esp. in a "weaken / strnegthen argument" type of questions.

I still think E is irrelevant to whether or not the curfew measures are effective.

My thinking is that for E to begin to be relevant it would have to read: The schools in Parktown have introduced a number of after-school programs that will be MANDATORY FOR teenagers until 6 p.m. on weekday afternoons.

Am I missing something?

instead of getting into argument, can we have the OA??

I am between B and D. B does look stronger though.

I think E is irrelevant bc there is no evidence that teenagers would participate in school programs from 3 to 6 pm, it's possible that they'd rather commit some crime instead of takeng after-school party.

B - weakens, bc:

conclusion: they(measure) are unlikely to affect the problem that concerns citizens and citizens' concern is: increased freq of serious crimes
so, as B states:
The crimes committed by teenagers in the afternoon are mostly small thefts and inconsequential vandalism

frequency(in stimulus) and inconsequential (in B) - another reason why B kills stimulus' part.

Hands Down! B!!!

Reasons above are stated well enough.


All other options are out of scope or do not weaken the argument.

OA Please

OA is B, for the reasons mentioned above. I met this problem on gmatprep as well and went for E, but it turned out to be B... ANd I got 46 when I would have got 48 had I got this one right!

In my opinion B is better than other choices