Critical Reasoning

Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to the governor's ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates. Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.
B. Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.
C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.
D. Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate's subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.
E. The governor's ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.

[spoiler]OA: A vs C. Which one is better and why???[/spoiler]

I am with C.

On second thought I negated C and I found it as a strengthner...
But we need to get a weakner on negation...very tough

Hi HSPA,

Would be really thankful if you can explain in detail why option C is correct........

Also, in option C please clear one thing i.e "the group of inmates" are the inmates present one who are being denied the "access to college level course" or are the "inmates those who studied college level courses and after coming out have committed less crime".............

aspirant2011 wrote:Hi HSPA,

Would be really thankful if you can explain in detail why option C is correct........

Also, in option C please clear one thing i.e "the group of inmates" are the inmates present one who are being denied the "access to college level course" or are the "inmates those who studied college level courses and after coming out have committed less crime".............

C is not correct. On negation I found C a strengthner. Typically on negating a choice it shall weaken the stem.

A is correct

Ummm ....I am still with C.

It looks to me as a defender assumption. Consider a situation where these inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely than other inmates to commit crime.
If this is true, I can not ascertain that taking up college level courses has any positive impact on the prisoners.

Btw,
What is that I am missing in A?
HSPA,
Can you help me understand why A is better?

+1 for C

Negating C we get - Inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released

So if they already were less likely to commit crime, then the effect of education may not be the reason for this group committing lesser no of crimes than other inmates.

Looking again at the question, I think both A & C, when negated, destroy the conclusion.

aspirant2011 wrote:Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to the governor's ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates. Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.
B. Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.
C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.
D. Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate's subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.
E. The governor's ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.

[spoiler]OA: A vs C. Which one is better and why???[/spoiler]

Dear buddies,
If I negate C, I am getting a premise which is same as is marked and underlined above.. it is not weakening the conclusion.

If you have negated A and found it as a strenghter then you have done the same mistake as did I. missing the word 'counter'

aspirant2011 wrote:Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to the governor's ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates. Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.
B. Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.
C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.
D. Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate's subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.
E. The governor's ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.

[spoiler]OA: A vs C. Which one is better and why???[/spoiler]

A tough one. I'm b/t A & C. I tried to break it down in simple words.
Conclusion: making harsh condition(not giving college-level courses) will increase crime
weakener: Even the cause is not there, effect is there. In other even if college level education is not there, crime will reduce.
Negating A does the same thing.
Negating C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.
Doesn't weaken.
Experts please comment.

The following link should help.

https://www.beatthegmat.com/governor-and ... 21-15.html

A - Being able to take college-level courses while in prison is likely to deter anyone from a
crime that he or she might otherwise have committed - I have removed negatives as double negative makes a positive.

C - The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were already more likely than
other inmates to commit crimes after being released - Done same thing as a

Both statements strengthen the conclusion and both offers to take courses not completing the course but C is stronger because it cites example of past (See the word 'were') and A uses the word 'might have' and is therefore of less impact.

Thanks for closing the thread sourav

sourabh33 wrote:The following link should help.

https://www.beatthegmat.com/governor-and ... 21-15.html