yvonne0923 wrote:Citizen: Each year since 1970, a new record has been set for the number of murders committed in this city. This fact points to the decreasing ability of our law enforcement system to prevent violent crime.

City Official: You overlook the fact that the city's population has risen steadily since 1970. In fact, the number of murder victims per 100 people has actually fallen slightly in the city since 1970.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strongly counter the city official's response?

A. The incidence of fraud has greatly increased int he city since 1970.
B. The rate of murders in the city since 1970 decreased according to the age group of the victim, decreasing more for younger victims.
C. Murders and other violent crimes are more likely to be reported now than they were in 1970.
D. The number of law enforcement officials in the city has increased at a rate judged by city law enforcement experts to be sufficient to serve the city's increased population.
E. If the health care received by assault victims last year had been of the same quality as it was in 1970, the murder rate in the city last year would have turned out to be several times what it actually was.















____________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have trouble to understand the choice E, how does the quality of health care relate to the murder rate? Also, how does this choice counter the city official's argument?
[spoiler]O.A: E[/spoiler]

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:The official is implying that there is no real problem - the number of murders is "normal", or even reduced when viewed on a per 100 people basis. E counters that by saying that the actual murder numbers would've been bigger were it not for the improved health care received by assault victims. In other words, it's not the police that are saving the murders - it's the doctors who treat the victims of the assult crimes who are "saving the day" and allowing him to put up a show of "improvement".

The main thing with this sort of "dialog" questions is to clarify to yourself, BEFORE you go to the answer choices, what two sides are presented, what each side is saying, and which side you are trying to support (or attack). Countering the official can be done either by showing that there's something wrong with HIS argument (which is what E does), or by supporting the opposing view (in this case, an answer choice that shows that the police are indeed unable to deal with violent crime). Once you have these two avenues in mind, aggressively eliminate anything that doesn't do one of the two (or even goes against what you;re trying to do, such as answer choice C and D above), but be open to both forms of "weakening" in the right answer choice.