Critical Reasoning

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

C, irrelevance,
A is best

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..

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.

@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..

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.

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??

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

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

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]

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.

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

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.

Thanks a lot Ron.