BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

knewton hw cr 9

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:41 pm
Thanked: 33 times
Followed by:5 members

knewton hw cr 9

by pradeepkaushal9518 » Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:37 pm
Select the statement that most weakens the argument below:

Police note that both street crime and car accidents tend to occur with greater frequency at night. The explanation for this phenomenon, they maintain, is that criminals, who tend to be out in greater numbers at night, are also more lawless in their driving and tend to cause more accidents.

A
Some of the street crime that takes place at night is performed by criminals on foot.
B
Car accidents also happen more frequently in dark places such as underground tunnels and parking garages.
C
Convicted criminals have been found to drive faster, on average, than people who have not been convicted of a crime.
D
Some street crimes are committed during the daytime.
E
Street crimes make up only a small percentage of overall crime that takes place at night.
A SMALL TOWN GUY
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:19 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 146 times
Followed by:24 members

by shovan85 » Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:42 am
IMO E

A So some are by cars (does not weaken)
B Criminals can drive through these dark place (does not weaken)
C Strengthen the Conclusion
D Some day some night (Irrelevant)
E Weakens the conclusion by stating street crime is very less so they contribute less to the accidents.
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 905
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:38 am
Thanked: 378 times
Followed by:123 members
GMAT Score:760

by Geva@EconomistGMAT » Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:11 am
Should be B.

the argument looks at two phenomena (street crime at night, accidents at night) and reaches the conclusion that they have the same cause: criminals who go out at night. In reaching this conclusion, the causal argument must assume that there is no other cause for the night accidents - in saying "it's the criminals", the argument is saying "it's not anything else but the criminals".

B directly contradicts this assumption by presenting a different cause: it's the dark conditions themselves that cause accidents, not the lawless criminals who abound there. The fact that criminals also drive through car parks is irrelevant - the argument didn't say that these dark places are frequented by criminals more than by other people. Thus, criminals stand the same chance as everybody else to have an accident in a dark car park, so it's the dark itself that is the cause.

E is irrelevant, IMHO - the fact that street crime is just a small percentage of overall nighttime crime takes nothing from the argument's premise that criminals abound at night, causing accidents. The argument's basic premise is that criminals come out at night more than at day, which is (according to the argument's logic) the reason why there are more accidents at night. Comparing night street crime to other forms of night crime is therefore irrelevant - they all mean that criminals still come out at night.
Geva
Senior Instructor
Master GMAT
1-888-780-GMAT
https://www.mastergmat.com
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:41 pm
Thanked: 33 times
Followed by:5 members

by pradeepkaushal9518 » Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:45 am
oa is B
A SMALL TOWN GUY
Top
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:19 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 146 times
Followed by:24 members

by shovan85 » Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:08 am
Geva Stern wrote:Should be B.

the argument looks at two phenomena (street crime at night, accidents at night) and reaches the conclusion that they have the same cause: criminals who go out at night. In reaching this conclusion, the causal argument must assume that there is no other cause for the night accidents - in saying "it's the criminals", the argument is saying "it's not anything else but the criminals".

B directly contradicts this assumption by presenting a different cause: it's the dark conditions themselves that cause accidents, not the lawless criminals who abound there. The fact that criminals also drive through car parks is irrelevant - the argument didn't say that these dark places are frequented by criminals more than by other people. Thus, criminals stand the same chance as everybody else to have an accident in a dark car park, so it's the dark itself that is the cause.

E is irrelevant, IMHO - the fact that street crime is just a small percentage of overall nighttime crime takes nothing from the argument's premise that criminals abound at night, causing accidents. The argument's basic premise is that criminals come out at night more than at day, which is (according to the argument's logic) the reason why there are more accidents at night. Comparing night street crime to other forms of night crime is therefore irrelevant - they all mean that criminals still come out at night.
Thanks!! I am in office right now so trying to solve these in a manner that no one notices me doing so ;)

Also in general we should avoid "percentage" in CR as it does not state the total number of occurrence and so the actual number alsways remain Vague.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Kolkata, India
Thanked: 11 times
Followed by:5 members

by pesfunk » Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:52 am
Nice example stating "Always stick to the information given in the passage"


Geva Stern wrote:Should be B.

the argument looks at two phenomena (street crime at night, accidents at night) and reaches the conclusion that they have the same cause: criminals who go out at night. In reaching this conclusion, the causal argument must assume that there is no other cause for the night accidents - in saying "it's the criminals", the argument is saying "it's not anything else but the criminals".

B directly contradicts this assumption by presenting a different cause: it's the dark conditions themselves that cause accidents, not the lawless criminals who abound there. The fact that criminals also drive through car parks is irrelevant - the argument didn't say that these dark places are frequented by criminals more than by other people. Thus, criminals stand the same chance as everybody else to have an accident in a dark car park, so it's the dark itself that is the cause.

E is irrelevant, IMHO - the fact that street crime is just a small percentage of overall nighttime crime takes nothing from the argument's premise that criminals abound at night, causing accidents. The argument's basic premise is that criminals come out at night more than at day, which is (according to the argument's logic) the reason why there are more accidents at night. Comparing night street crime to other forms of night crime is therefore irrelevant - they all mean that criminals still come out at night.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1