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

Redeem

gun law

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:47 am
Location: new york city
Thanked: 1 times

gun law

by mberkowitz » Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:45 am
In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws was 645 crimes per 100,000 persons—about 50 percent higher than the average rate in the eleven states where strict gun-control laws have never been passed. Thus one way to reduce violent crime is to repeal strict gun control laws.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

(A) The annual rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws has decreased since the passage of those laws.
(B) In states with strict gun-control laws, few individuals are prosecuted for violating such laws.
(C) In states without strict gun-control laws, many individuals have had no formal training in the use of firearms.
(D) The annual rate of nonviolent crime is lower in states with strict gun-control laws than in states without such laws.
(E) Less than half of the individuals who reside in states without strict gun-control laws own a gun.

[spoiler]OA is A. Can someone please explain why A is a better choice than B? Yes, if the rate has decreased, that certainly weakens the argument. But what if there is poor means by which to prosecute individuals breaking the law? Many thanks...[/spoiler]
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:25 am
Location: New York, US

Option A:

by slash » Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:00 pm
The conclusion of the argument is "hus one way to reduce violent crime is to repeal strict gun control laws" to weaken this conclusion, we should provide the authour to have a second thought about the conclusion.

Option B:
Crime rates is not decreased even though the state has strict gun control law and few individuals are prosecuted for violating such laws. This does not weaken the argument.

Option A:
When compated to last year the annual crime rate has decreased in states, after passing strict gun control law. So this clearly weakens the argument when compared to the Option B
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:16 am
imo:A

Earlier the rate was higher,,, it reduced as a result of the law.

this weakens the conclusion that the law should be repealed..
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by ssgmatter » Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:40 am
I am not clear as to why B is wrong here although I understand that A is the one that closely touches the conclusion of the argument

cheers!
Best-
Amit
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:31 am

by kaushals » Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:59 am
IMO A.

Premise: States with laws have more number of crime than those without law.
Conclusion: Law should be abolished.

Gap: What about the rates of crime before law in both cases. There might be more number of crimes in law states as compared to other ones previously. So decrease in crimes means that law has worked.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by ssgmatter » Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:10 am
cool.....i understand that

can you please explain why B is wrong with good reasons

cheers!
Best-
Amit
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:17 am
Location: madrid
Thanked: 171 times
Followed by:64 members
GMAT Score:790

by kevincanspain » Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:17 am
ssgmatter wrote:I am not clear as to why B is wrong here although I understand that A is the one that closely touches the conclusion of the argument

cheers!
You need to tell us why you think B is right!

Whether or not people are prosecuted in the states with the laws seems irrelevant to me
Kevin Armstrong
GMAT Instructor
Gmatclasses
Madrid
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by ssgmatter » Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:45 am
@Kevin....My thoughts on why B is wrong...

conclusion of the argument is "Thus one way to reduce violent crime is to repeal strict gun control laws."

if few individuals are prosecuted for violating laws in states with strict gun control laws then most of them would go free without any punishment....so more crimes which actually strengthen the argument

so choice B would actually strengthen the conclusion

Please correct my understanding.
Best-
Amit
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1