crime rate

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:51 pm
Thanked: 12 times

crime rate

by nervesofsteel » Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:17 pm
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.

IMO ans should be C

but OA is A

Please explain...
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:28 am
Thanked: 3 times
GMAT Score:780

by relic » Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:51 am
Hmm, what is the author of the argument concluding? She is concluding that the action (eliminating access to college classes) will not result in the governor's hope of a reduced crime rate. Or, to put it another way, that the action will result in a similar or increased crime rate.

She has based this conclusion on the fact that released inmates who have taken such classes commit fewer crimes than released inmates who did not take such classes. She is assuming that these classes prevent more crime than they cause (perhaps some people's only opportunity to take such classes is while in prison).

Answer C is tricky because it seems to promote a causal relationship the author wants. But again, even if taking a class makes inmates less likely to commit further crimes doesn't matter if others are committing crimes just to take the classes.

The correct answer, A, awkwardly states the author's assumption that people aren't committing crimes just for the opportunity to take college-level classes.
Relic Tutoring

Free GMAT advice and strategies at https://relictutoring.blocked/

Legendary Member
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:13 pm
Thanked: 33 times
Followed by:4 members

by vittalgmat » Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:57 am
Here is my understanding.
Conclusion of the argument:
Gov's current action will counter his/her's ultimate goal (reduction in crime).

Argument:
make prison exp harsher by denying inmates access to college-level courses.

So the assumption is the gov thinks college level courses are a luxury and has no impact on the prisoner's crime behaviour after their release.
This is what A explains.

Legendary Member
Posts: 2467
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:14 pm
Thanked: 331 times
Followed by:11 members

by cramya » Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:50 pm
NervesofSteel,
I am with u on this.

Check out Ian's explanation here:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/tough-assump ... 32980.html

Legendary Member
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:51 pm
Thanked: 12 times

by nervesofsteel » Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:41 pm
cramya wrote:NervesofSteel,
I am with u on this.

Check out Ian's explanation here:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/tough-assump ... 32980.html

Thanks Cramya

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:00 am

by graem83d » Sun May 15, 2016 3:17 am
So I feel A is a better option