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.

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.

oa is B

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.

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.