-
nandy1984
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:29 pm
- Thanked: 4 times
The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents) in Meadowbrook is 60 percent 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 argument above is flawed because it fails to take into account
A. changes in the population density of both Parkdale and Meadowbrook over the past four years
B. how the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate
for Parkdale
C. the ratio of violent to nonviolent crimes committed during the past four years in Meadowbrook and Parkdale
D. the violent crime rates in Meadowbrook and Parkdale four years ago
E. how Meadowbrook's expenditures for crime prevention over the past four years compare to Parkdale's
expenditures
From the above argument i could eliminate the choices C and E at the first go...
We are given the information about the % increase in the "number of violent crimes per 1000 residents"... We don't know
i) Number of residents in each city 4 years ago
ii) their rate of growth in the 4 years
iii) what are the number of violent crimes per 1000 4 years ago..
But the most relevant option to this argument is option (iii)... is this correct way of doing????
For example :
If city A has 10000 people and the number of crimes is 60, city B has 1000 people and number of crimes in city B is 60.
(number of crimes per thousand) in cityA = 6
(number of crimes per thousand) in cityB = 60
So increase of 60% for city A means 9.6 crimes per thousand
10% increase for city B means 66... here we assumed the options (ii) rate of growth is assumed constant...
OMG am i analyzing too much????... or will this help in the other kind of problems????.... please help and correct my understanding.... I know all of which i have said may not be useful for this problem but most of the CR problems involve numbers and percentages... So this might help there...
Thanks.....
The argument above is flawed because it fails to take into account
A. changes in the population density of both Parkdale and Meadowbrook over the past four years
B. how the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate
for Parkdale
C. the ratio of violent to nonviolent crimes committed during the past four years in Meadowbrook and Parkdale
D. the violent crime rates in Meadowbrook and Parkdale four years ago
E. how Meadowbrook's expenditures for crime prevention over the past four years compare to Parkdale's
expenditures
From the above argument i could eliminate the choices C and E at the first go...
We are given the information about the % increase in the "number of violent crimes per 1000 residents"... We don't know
i) Number of residents in each city 4 years ago
ii) their rate of growth in the 4 years
iii) what are the number of violent crimes per 1000 4 years ago..
But the most relevant option to this argument is option (iii)... is this correct way of doing????
For example :
If city A has 10000 people and the number of crimes is 60, city B has 1000 people and number of crimes in city B is 60.
(number of crimes per thousand) in cityA = 6
(number of crimes per thousand) in cityB = 60
So increase of 60% for city A means 9.6 crimes per thousand
10% increase for city B means 66... here we assumed the options (ii) rate of growth is assumed constant...
OMG am i analyzing too much????... or will this help in the other kind of problems????.... please help and correct my understanding.... I know all of which i have said may not be useful for this problem but most of the CR problems involve numbers and percentages... So this might help there...
Thanks.....
