VIGNESHWARR wrote:The violent crime rate(number of violent crimes per 1000 residents) in Meadowbrook is 60 perct higher now than it was four years ago. The corresponding increase for Parkdale is only 10 percent.These figures support the conclusion that residents of Meadowbrook are more likely to become victims of violent crime than are residents of Parkdale.
The arguement above is flawed because it fails to take into account
1.changes in the population density of boyh Parkdale and Meadowbrook over the past four years.
2.how the rate of the population density of both Parkdale over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale.
3.the ratio of nonviolent crimes commited during the past four years compares in Meadowbrook and Parkdale.
4.the violent crime rate in Meadowbrook and Parkdale four ago
5.how Meadowbrook's expenditure for crime prevention over the past four years compare to Parkdale's expenditure
Case 1:
Meadowbrook's violent crime rate 4 years ago = 1000, so its violent crime rate now = 1600.
Parkdale's violent crime rate 4 years ago = 10, so its violent crime rate now = 11.
Here, Meadowbrook's current rate is far HIGHER than Parkdale's, SUPPORTING the conclusion that
residents of Meadowbrook are more likely to become victims of violent crime than are residents of Parkdale.
Case 2:
Meadowbrook's violent crime rate 4 years ago = 10, so its violent crime rate now = 16.
Parkdale's violent crime rate 4 years ago = 1000, so its violent crime rate now = 1100.
Here, Meadowbrook's current rate is far LOWER than Parkdale's, WEAKENING the conclusion that
residents of Meadowbrook are more likely to become victims of violent crime than are residents of Parkdale.
As the cases above illustrate, since we don't know the rates in Meadowbrook and Parkdale 4 years ago, we cannot determine which city has the higher rate now.
Answer choice
D describes this flaw in the reasoning:
The argument above is flawed because it fails to take into account the violent crime rate in Meadowbrook and Parkdale four years ago.
The correct answer is
D.
Answer choice A:
The argument above is flawed because it fails to take into account changes in the population density of both Parkdale and Meadowbrook over the past four years.
Who cares?
If Meadowbrook has a higher violent crime rate -- if the ratio of VIOLENT CRIMES TO RESIDENTS in Meadowbrook is higher -- then the likelihood that a Meadowbrook resident will fall victim to a violent crime is higher, whether there are 1000 people in Meadowbrook or 1,000,000.
Eliminate A.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at
[email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
