To decrease the number of crimes in city Y, the city's Police Commissioner proposed taking some police officers from low-crime districts of the city and moving them to high-crime districts of the city. His proposal is based on city Y crime data that show that the number of crimes in any district of the city decreases when additional police officers are moved into that district. The Police Commissioner's proposal depends on which of the following assumptions?
A) City X experienced a drastic reduction in crime after implementing a proposal similar to that proposed by the Police Commissioner of city Y.
b) The severity of crimes committed in any district of the city decreases when additional police officers are moved into that district.
c) The number of crimes committed in all high-crime districts of city Y is more than triple the number of crimes committed in all low-crime districts of city Y.
d) There are more low-crime districts than high-crime districts in city Y.
e) Districts of the city from which police officers are removed do not experience significant crime increases shortly after the removal of those officers.
Conclusion : To decrease the number of crimes in City Y, move the number of officers from low level crimes areas to high level.
Because in any city whenver the officers are moved the number of crimes in that city have decreased.
Logically negated conclusion: Even if you move the number of officer from low crime area to high crime area, the crime in Y will not decrease.
logically negated choice E:Districts of the city from which police officers are removed do experience significant crime increases shortly after the removal of those officers.
This situation is out of scope , as we are considering only when the officers are added the crime woulddecrease. what would happen if they are removed from city Y, is out of scope.
Can you explain why E is correct
A) City X experienced a drastic reduction in crime after implementing a proposal similar to that proposed by the Police Commissioner of city Y.
b) The severity of crimes committed in any district of the city decreases when additional police officers are moved into that district.
c) The number of crimes committed in all high-crime districts of city Y is more than triple the number of crimes committed in all low-crime districts of city Y.
d) There are more low-crime districts than high-crime districts in city Y.
e) Districts of the city from which police officers are removed do not experience significant crime increases shortly after the removal of those officers.
Conclusion : To decrease the number of crimes in City Y, move the number of officers from low level crimes areas to high level.
Because in any city whenver the officers are moved the number of crimes in that city have decreased.
Logically negated conclusion: Even if you move the number of officer from low crime area to high crime area, the crime in Y will not decrease.
logically negated choice E:Districts of the city from which police officers are removed do experience significant crime increases shortly after the removal of those officers.
This situation is out of scope , as we are considering only when the officers are added the crime woulddecrease. what would happen if they are removed from city Y, is out of scope.
Can you explain why E is correct
