Governor and crime-rate

Expert replies

erjamit: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 170; Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:36 am; Thanked: 7 times

by erjamit » Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:33 am

Newspaper editorial:

In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

B. Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.

C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

D. Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.

E. The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.

OA A but what's wrong with C.

Amit

Like this post

Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning | Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:33 am

NSNguyen: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 401; Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 9:21 amFollowed by: 1 member; Thanked: 3 times

by NSNguyen » Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:11 pm

C, irrelevance,
A is best

Please share your idea and your reasoning

https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org

Like this post

erjamit: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 170; Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:36 am; Thanked: 7 times

by erjamit » Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:35 pm

But doesn't C imply that the inmates who chose to take college-level and those who didn't were not different when comparing the likelihood of commiting crime.

Am I missing something here..

Like this post

raunekk: Legendary Member; Posts: 1159; Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm; Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:27 pm

erjamit,

C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released

In my opinion C means--Inmates who chose to take college-level courses were equally or more likely than others to commit crime..

This goes against the conclusion - However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal

In assumption questions..the answer choice should support the conclusion.

I hope this helps..

thanks.

Like this post

reachac: Legendary Member; Posts: 572; Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:25 am; Thanked: 21 times

by reachac » Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:40 pm

@Raunekk,

I feel C should be the answer.

The argument says, that w/o education, likelyhood of coomiting a crime would increase.

we want the ans to support this argument.

Now A says Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

Does this mean' being able to take college-level courses while in prison is likely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed'...No this cant be inferred

C says The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released .....it means the two groups i.e educated as well as non educated were the same in all other respects leave aside eduation.
Hence watever diff in there behavious or crime rate was, was brought about by there diff in education..

Like this post

raunekk: Legendary Member; Posts: 1159; Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm; Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:38 am

Hi reachac, nice to see you arnd...

you yourself answered your question...

Does this mean' being able to take college-level courses while in prison is likely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed'...No this cant be inferred

The goverment might have assumed this ..thats why they will be denying inmates the access to college-level courses

now C,

it means the two groups i.e educated as well as non educated were the same in all other respects leave aside eduation.

Well,if they were the same in all respect then why would government take that step..It doesnt make any difference ,if government allow to take college-level courses or not allow to take..At the end they will commit crime..
The argument falls apart...

thanks.

Like this post

reachac: Legendary Member; Posts: 572; Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:25 am; Thanked: 21 times

by reachac » Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:38 am

raunekk wrote:Hi reachac, nice to see you arnd...

you yourself answered your question...

Does this mean' being able to take college-level courses while in prison is likely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed'...No this cant be inferred

The goverment might have assumed this ..thats why they will be denying inmates the access to college-level courses

now C,
it means the two groups i.e educated as well as non educated were the same in all other respects leave aside eduation.
Well,if they were the same in all respect then why would government take that step..It doesnt make any difference ,if government allow to take college-level courses or not allow to take..At the end they will commit crime..
The argument falls apart...

thanks.

Heyy Raunekk,
It is likewise nice to c u, rather read i shud say

Well, let me take ur points 1 by 1

1)

Does this mean' being able to take college-level courses while in prison is likely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed'...No this cant be inferred

The goverment might have assumed this ..thats why they will be denying inmates the access to college-level courses

If ur point in bold is true, what do u think the governor mite be trying to do, decrese crime or incfrese crime??

2)

now C,

it means the two groups i.e educated as well as non educated were the same in all other respects leave aside eduation.

Well,if they were the same in all respect then why would government take that step..It doesnt make any difference ,if government allow to take college-level courses or not allow to take..At the end they will commit crime..[/quote]

To illustrate my point, I'll use another question, quite similar to this situation in quote above. Here it goes

When a group of children who have been watching television programs that include acts of violence is sent to play with a group of children who have been watching programs that do not include acts of violence, the children who have been watching violent programs commit a much greater number of violent acts in their play than do the children who have been watching nonviolent programs. Therefore, children at play can be prevented from committing violent acts by not being allowed to watch violence on television.
The argument in the passage assumes which one of the following?
(A) Television has a harmful effect on society.
(B) Parents are responsible for the acts of their children.
(C) Violent actions and passive observation of violent actions are not related.
(D) There are no other differences between the two groups of children that might account for the difference in violent behavior.
(E) Children who are treated violently will respond with violence.

The ans for the example qs above is D, wat do u think??

Like this post

raunekk: Legendary Member; Posts: 1159; Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm; Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Sat Jul 19, 2008 7:35 am

Hmmmm...you have a point !!!

But cant this Gmat people keep it simple..

Lets go to the root cause..Lets simplify the language..
.A. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed

Means,
Being able to take college level courses while in prison is likely to deter anyone from a crime

i hope this will help...

thx

Like this post

kiranlegend: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 340; Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:09 am; Location: India; Thanked: 6 times

Re: Governor and crime-rate

by kiranlegend » Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:31 pm

erjamit wrote:Newspaper editorial:

In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

B. Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.

C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

D. Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.

E. The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.

OA A but what's wrong with C.

Amit

initially even i had thought it to be C before reading your comments.. after reading your comments i got confused now:(

here is my question to you:

the conclusion is 'this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.'

guys, we are looking for an assumption that supports the conclusion.. the conlusion says that the governer's ultimate goal is being countered by governer's action by not allowing inmates to have access to college level courses..

so we should look for an assumption that goes with the conclusion and against the goal right?? please let me know

Like this post

erjamit: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 170; Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:36 am; Thanked: 7 times

by erjamit » Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:46 am

This looks closer than I initially thought

The conclusion of the argument is:-
Governor has taken a step which is counter-productive to his ultimate goal of reducing crime. Because, the governor wants crime to decrease whereas by denying access to (lets put) education he is countering the goal of reduced crime. This implies that education had some effect on the inmates.

Answer choice C:-
So, what I think is if all inmates were equally likely to committ crimes but bcoz of education some curbed their criminal instincts. Thus, education is playing some role in reducing crime and the governor by denying the education to inmates is not reducing crime.

Answer choice A:-
It is double negative and means "Being able to take college level courses while in prison is likely to deter anyone from a crime" (source: raunekk

)

I think both choices are quite close but I am not sure how to choose between the two close choices here.

any suggestions.[/b]

Like this post

cheryl3007: Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts; Posts: 8; Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:25 pm; Location: Hanoi

by cheryl3007 » Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:39 am

I myself think C.

Just Negate (put NOT into) both options & you'll see
NOT A supports the conclusion while NOT C is against the conclusion.

--> C is the assumption.

Flying high

Like this post

enniguy: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 156; Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:41 am; Thanked: 8 times

Very confused

by enniguy » Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:20 am

I just can't understand Option A and C seems like a right answer! Puzzled.

Like this post

vijay_venky: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 173; Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:18 pm; Location: Hyderabad; Thanked: 12 times

D strengthens the conclusion,

by vijay_venky » Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:30 am

The conclusion in the topic is "this action is clearly counter to the governor's ultimate goal"

what ever assumption author makes must support the conclusion.

Now if you consider the two options(A and C) A seems to be closer to the conclusion than C. C definitely strengthens the premise(inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates) but not the conclusion.

So I think it is A.

Like this post

GMAT/MBA Expert

lunarpower: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 3380; Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 amFollowed by: 1535 members; Thanked: 2256 times; GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:13 pm

nah, this should definitely be (c). you probably just have the wrong answer key.

the argument depends upon the assumption that eliminating college-level courses will have an effect on inmates' rates of recidivism ("counter to the governor's ultimate goal"). in other words, the argument is assuming that the college-level courses CAUSE differences in the inmates' behavior.

if you're going to argue that X causes Y, one necessary precondition (assumption) is that Y DOESN'T cause X.
this is precisely what is asserted in (c), which should be the correct answer.

--

not only is (a) in incorrect assumption, but (a) actually runs EXACTLY COUNTER to the argument.

if the presence/absence of college courses will NOT DETER crime, then that is essentially saying that it has no effect.
therefore, since there's no effect, this action will NOT be "counter to the governor's ultimate goal".

hence (a) is not only a wrong assumption; it actually undermines the argument!

Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions Ã Ron en franÃ§ais
Voit esittÃ¤Ã¤ kysymyksiÃ¤ Ron:lle myÃ¶s suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vÃªtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vÃªtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

Like this post

enniguy: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 156; Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:41 am; Thanked: 8 times

Thanks

by enniguy » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:54 pm

Thanks a lot Ron.

Like this post

Post new topic Post Reply

GMAT Course Reviews

560 reviews

1168 reviews

431 reviews

359 reviews

147 reviews

5/5

5 Star (560 Reviews)

"Target Test Prep is the closest to the official version of the GMAT exam, about 99% accuracy in terms of the quality and quantity of information. The course has excellently created singular sets of focused lessons and tests for every possible topic that one could come across in the official GMAT exam."

"The TTP course maximizes the efficiency of the time you spend studying. It will take time and effort but I could almost guarantee that if you complete the course exactly as it is laid out you will get an amazing score. They also have a very responsive team willing to help with any questions you might have."

"TTP has two things that I think no other test prep company offers: A teaching approach that reinforces understanding and an attitude that will give you the mental preparedness needed to succeed on the test. TTP gives you a deep understanding of the concept you need to know while teaching you how to think."

Write a Review