• NEW! FREE Beat The GMAT Quizzes
Hundreds of Questions Highly Detailed Reporting Expert Explanations
• 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 PRACTICE GMAT EXAMS Earn 10 Points Per Post Earn 10 Points Per Thanks Earn 10 Points Per Upvote ## Criminals released from prison on parole ##### This topic has 3 expert replies and 2 member replies ## Criminals released from prison on parole Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under routine supervision. A recent program has allowed criminals to leave prison early under intensive supervision; they must obey curfews and in some cases they must be electronically monitored. The percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision, so intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies? (A) The criminals under intensive supervision, but not those under routine supervision, were required to work or attend school during their supervision period. (B) All of the criminals who were arrested while under routine supervision had been in prison more than once before being paroled and put under supervision. (C) The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under routine supervision. (D) Of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have committed crimes if they had been under routine supervision. (E) The number of criminals put under routine supervision was not significantly greater than the number of criminals put under intensive supervision. OA C I got the correct answer, but that was more by way of intuition than logic. Experts could you pls explain with perhaps an example how can C be the assumption here. ### GMAT/MBA Expert GMAT Instructor Joined 25 May 2010 Posted: 15023 messages Followed by: 1859 members Upvotes: 13060 GMAT Score: 790 vivekvijayan wrote: Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under routine supervision. A recent program has allowed criminals to leave prison early under intensive supervision; they must obey curfews and in some cases they must be electronically monitored. The percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision, so intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies? (A) The criminals under intensive supervision, but not those under routine supervision, were required to work or attend school during their supervision period. (B) All of the criminals who were arrested while under routine supervision had been in prison more than once before being paroled and put under supervision. (C) The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under routine supervision. (D) Of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have committed crimes if they had been under routine supervision. (E) The number of criminals put under routine supervision was not significantly greater than the number of criminals put under intensive supervision. This CR exhibits a LANGUAGE SHIFT: Whereas the premise is about X, the conclusion is about Y. Premise: The percentage of released criminals ARRESTED while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision. Conclusion: Intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional CRIMES. Whereas the premise is about BEING ARRESTED, the conclusion is about COMMITTING CRIMES. The assumption that there is a link between the number of arrests and the number of crimes. Since the assumption is WHAT MUST BE TRUE, apply the NEGATION TEST. When the correct answer choice is negated, the conclusion will be invalidated. C, negated: The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than for those under routine supervision. If criminals under intensive supervision were arrested 1 time for every 2 crimes committed (a ratio of 1/2), while criminals under routine supervision were arrested 1 time for every 10 crimes committed (a rate of 1/10), the criminals under intensive supervision committed FEWER CRIMES for each arrest, invalidating the conclusion that intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional CRIMES. Since the negation of C invalidates the conclusion, C is the assumption: WHAT MUST BE TRUE for the conclusion to be valid. The correct answer is C. _________________ Mitch Hunt Private Tutor for the GMAT and GRE GMATGuruNY@gmail.com If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "UPVOTE" icon. Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance. For more information, please email me at GMATGuruNY@gmail.com. Student Review #1 Student Review #2 Student Review #3 Free GMAT Practice Test How can you improve your test score if you don't know your baseline score? Take a free online practice exam. Get started on achieving your dream score today! Sign up now. ### GMAT/MBA Expert GMAT Instructor Joined 22 Feb 2010 Posted: 2193 messages Followed by: 509 members Upvotes: 1186 GMAT Score: 770 You have found a great CR question from the Veritas Prep Advanced Verbal Lesson. I understand why you may have some difficulty with this one as it is a difficult question. However, it is also a question that follows a certain form that is quite common to the GMAT. That form is the "switch in terms." You can notice the switch in terms if you focus closely on the evidence and on the conclusion. The evidence is about the percentage of criminals on parole who are "arrested" - that percentage is about the same for intensive and for routine supervision. Yet the conclusion switches terms to talk about "crimes committed" and claims that both types are equally good for preventing crimes from being committed. When you spot this switch you most likely have either an assumption question or a weaken question. If it is an assumption question like this one you want to say that the two things are equally, thereby saving the argument. So you say that evidence about arrests is good for proving a conclusion about crimes committed. In other words you want arrests to translate to crimes committed. Choice C guarantees that translation. If this is a weaken question then you will simply want to state that arrests are different from crimes committed. That is enough to weaken this argument. As a bonus I want to tell you about the statistics on this question. From what I have observed from hundreds of students choice E is just about as popular as the correct answer C. Of course there is one word that makes E not the correct answer for this question. That word is "percentage" as in "The percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same..." percentages are already comparable and do not need to be adjusted or weighted. If the evidence had said "the NUMBER of criminals arrested" then you would want to go for choice E as we would a statistics problem. _________________ Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor Veritas Prep Reviews Save$100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now!
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
18 May 2014
Posted:
49 messages
David@VeritasPrep wrote:
You have found a great CR question from the Veritas Prep Advanced Verbal Lesson.

As a bonus I want to tell you about the statistics on this question. From what I have observed from hundreds of students choice E is just about as popular as the correct answer C. Of course there is one word that makes E not the correct answer for this question. That word is "percentage" as in "The percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same..." percentages are already comparable and do not need to be adjusted or weighted. If the evidence had said "the NUMBER of criminals arrested" then you would want to go for choice E as we would a statistics problem.
Hi David,

I understand what you say. But E is ok to me because Premise says percentage for both is same. Please consider the following.

Routine- 10% of 100000 = 10000
Intensive- 10% of 100 = 10

This is what I thought when I was trying to answer the question. But now I can see that E actually has removed the possibility of such example. So it is a type of strengthener not the assumption. Because if above example is true and E eliminate that possibility, it can't shatter the conclusion.

Am I right? Please help me.

### GMAT/MBA Expert

GMAT Instructor
Joined
22 Feb 2010
Posted:
2193 messages
Followed by:
509 members
Upvotes:
1186
GMAT Score:
770
No that is not correct.

"Percentage arrested is the same" is always comparable. So it does not matter if you have 10,000 people under routine supervision and 100 people under intensive supervision. What matters is at what rate these people are arrested.

So if the percentage arrested is 10% then 90% are not arrested and 10% are and that is always comparable. For example, if you got 90% of the points in your algebra class and I got 80% of the available points in my algebra class it does not matter how many points are available, you did better than I did.

Let me give you an example of when choice E would be correct. If we said that the same NUMBER of criminals were arrested under each - so for example 100 people are arrested under each program. Now you need to know how many people are in each program because 100 arrested out of 100 under intensive supervision is very different than 100 arrested out of 10,000 under normal supervision.

I have actually written an just published an entire article about percentage versus number. You can find it at http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-15/improve-your-batting-average-on-the-gmat.

_________________
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now! Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Joined 19 Sep 2014 Posted: 266 messages Followed by: 1 members Upvotes: 4 David@VeritasPrep wrote: No that is not correct. "Percentage arrested is the same" is always comparable. So it does not matter if you have 10,000 people under routine supervision and 100 people under intensive supervision. What matters is at what rate these people are arrested. So if the percentage arrested is 10% then 90% are not arrested and 10% are and that is always comparable. For example, if you got 90% of the points in your algebra class and I got 80% of the available points in my algebra class it does not matter how many points are available, you did better than I did. Let me give you an example of when choice E would be correct. If we said that the same NUMBER of criminals were arrested under each - so for example 100 people are arrested under each program. Now you need to know how many people are in each program because 100 arrested out of 100 under intensive supervision is very different than 100 arrested out of 10,000 under normal supervision. I have actually written an just published an entire article about percentage versus number. You can find it at http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-15/improve-your-batting-average-on-the-gmat. Hello David, I got E first and then rethought as below. Is my analysis correct? I have gone through the responses mentioned above and OE but still could not get how the concept of clever wordplay can lead us to the answer. Also I could not find the businessweek article written by you. PLease help. Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under routine supervision. A recent program has allowed criminals to leave prison early under intensive supervision; they must obey curfews and in some cases they must be electronically monitored. The percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision, Conclusion: [highlight]so intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes.[/highlight] those on parole cannot be more than the people on routine supervision. but % of criminals who got caught is same for both categories. more people on intensive supervision may have got caught. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies? (A) The criminals under intensive supervision, but not those under routine supervision, were required to work or attend school during their supervision period..............OUT of scope (B) All of the criminals who were arrested while under routine supervision had been in prison more than once before being paroled and put under supervision................This does not help us much. Although not really sure why it doesn't. (D) Of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some would not have committed crimes if they had been under routine supervision. so this means hat they committed crimes only because they are under intensive supervision i.e., intensive encourages them to commit more crimes i.e., it is worse rather than being more effective. Negates the conclusion. Well I got stuck between C and E. (E) The number of criminals put under routine supervision was not significantly greater than the number of criminals put under intensive supervision. This cant be true as you don't release almost half of the inmates on parole. (C) The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under routine supervision. Well I chose E at first but this came out to be the assumption when the test of negation is applied. negated C: The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under routine supervision. i.e., more crimes under intensive supervision same as D thereby collapsing the argument. So This is an assumption. • 5-Day Free Trial 5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • Free Veritas GMAT Class Experience Lesson 1 Live Free Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • Award-winning private GMAT tutoring Register now and save up to$200

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5 Day FREE Trial
Study Smarter, Not Harder

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 1 Hour Free
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Practice Test & Review
How would you score if you took the GMAT

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Magoosh
Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Get 300+ Practice Questions
25 Video lessons and 6 Webinars for FREE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• FREE GMAT Exam
Know how you'd score today for \$0

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Trial & Practice Exam
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

### Top First Responders*

1 Jay@ManhattanReview 66 first replies
2 fskilnik@GMATH 50 first replies
3 Brent@GMATPrepNow 49 first replies
4 GMATGuruNY 32 first replies
5 Rich.C@EMPOWERgma... 26 first replies
* Only counts replies to topics started in last 30 days
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members

### Most Active Experts

1 fskilnik@GMATH

GMATH Teacher

109 posts
2 Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

97 posts
3 Max@Math Revolution

Math Revolution

94 posts
4 Jay@ManhattanReview

Manhattan Review

83 posts
5 GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

78 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts