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

Redeem

police offcers

Expert replies
by pappueshwar » Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:16 pm
The proposal to hire ten new police officers in Middletown is quite foolish. There is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers, but not the salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate. Which of the following, if true, will most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?
a. Studies had shown that an increase in city's place force does not necessarily reduce crime
b. When one major city increased its police force by 19% last year, there were 40% more arrests and 13% more convictions
c. If funding for the new police officers' salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year
d. In most US cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms
e. Middletown's ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime.

is D correct ? original answer seems to be E
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by killer1387 » Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:34 pm
d. In most US cities, not all arrests result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms
e. Middletown's ratio of police officers to citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers will have a deterrent effect on crime.

i dont think D is a good choice as "not all" can mean even 1, hence if the case is for 1 then its not something strong reasoning to state the cost will not go up.
But E clearly states "deterrent effect on crime" thus if crime will go down by increasing police officers then there willnot be any possibility of increase in prison or any other reason this argument claims and hence the conclusion will fail.

So E is the best option.
Join the discussion