• 7 CATs FREE!
    If you earn 100 Forum Points

    Engage in the Beat The GMAT forums to earn
    100 points for $49 worth of Veritas practice GMATs FREE

    Veritas Prep
    VERITAS PRACTICE GMAT EXAMS
    Earn 10 Points Per Post
    Earn 10 Points Per Thanks
    Earn 10 Points Per Upvote
    REDEEM NOW

CR from GMATPrep

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 72
Joined: 28 Mar 2009
Thanked: 2 times

CR from GMATPrep

by nasa » Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:22 pm
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.

User avatar
MBA Student
Posts: 1194
Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Location: Paris, France
Thanked: 71 times
Followed by:17 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmat740 » Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:18 am
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

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 22
Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Boston, MA

by thought » Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:13 am
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.

Legendary Member
Posts: 876
Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Thanked: 13 times

by ketkoag » Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:23 am
the best answer is E as it weakens the conclusion of the argument.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 72
Joined: 28 Mar 2009
Thanked: 2 times

by nasa » Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:57 am
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.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 72
Joined: 28 Mar 2009
Thanked: 2 times

by nasa » Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:01 am
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.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 22
Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Boston, MA

by thought » Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:47 am
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?

User avatar
MBA Student
Posts: 1194
Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Location: Paris, France
Thanked: 71 times
Followed by:17 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmat740 » Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:03 pm
instead of getting into argument, can we have the OA??

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 239
Joined: 11 Feb 2009

by delhiboy1979 » Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:38 am
I am between B and D. B does look stronger though.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 131
Joined: 25 Feb 2009
Location: Azerbaijan/Baku
Thanked: 2 times

by S0laris » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:17 am
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.
we are the champions !

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 104
Joined: 19 Mar 2009
Location: Ohio, US
Thanked: 6 times

by blackarrow » Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:43 am
Hands Down! B!!!

Reasons above are stated well enough.


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

OA Please
Its better to burn out than to fade away

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 353
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Italy
Thanked: 7 times
GMAT Score:720

by mjjking » Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:57 am
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! :D
Beat The GMAT - 1st priority
Enter a top MBA program - 2nd priority
Loving my wife: MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL!

REAL THING 1 (AUG 2007): 680 (Q43, V40)
REAL THING 2 (APR 2009): 720 (Q47, V41)

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: 05 Aug 2014

by vanessa.m » Sun May 15, 2016 2:08 am
In my opinion B is better than other choices