Critical Reasoning

lunarpower wrote:

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote: Not a very good question, IMHO. It's trying to play on the "reported number is not the same as real number" issue

nope.

i think you may be reading a little bit too much into this question, and/or hypothesizing interpretations that are not the most likely ones for the statements at hand.
bear in mind how discrepancy problems work: you just have to ascertain exactly which discrepancy you're supposed to explain, and then pick the answer choice that most directly leads to the apparently contradictory effect.

in this case, the weird contradiction that you have to explain is this:
-- signs were erected warning tourists about pickpocketing
BUT
-- pickpocketing actually increased.

therefore, you just have to find some consideration that reasonably explains why the warning signs would actually facilitate pickpocketing.
choice (c) explains this quite well -- if tourists are rummaging through their pockets, then pickpockets can simply watch them and know exactly where their valuables are kept, therefore making the pickpockets' job much, much easier.

this problem has nothing to do with "actual versus reported cases", as that distinction is not mentioned anywhere in the passage.

trangle.nh wrote:

lunarpower wrote:

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote: Not a very good question, IMHO. It's trying to play on the "reported number is not the same as real number" issue

nope.

i think you may be reading a little bit too much into this question, and/or hypothesizing interpretations that are not the most likely ones for the statements at hand.
bear in mind how discrepancy problems work: you just have to ascertain exactly which discrepancy you're supposed to explain, and then pick the answer choice that most directly leads to the apparently contradictory effect.

in this case, the weird contradiction that you have to explain is this:
-- signs were erected warning tourists about pickpocketing
BUT
-- pickpocketing actually increased.

therefore, you just have to find some consideration that reasonably explains why the warning signs would actually facilitate pickpocketing.
choice (c) explains this quite well -- if tourists are rummaging through their pockets, then pickpockets can simply watch them and know exactly where their valuables are kept, therefore making the pickpockets' job much, much easier.

this problem has nothing to do with "actual versus reported cases", as that distinction is not mentioned anywhere in the passage.

why we have to :"find some consideration that reasonably explains why the warning signs would actually facilitate pickpocketing".

we can simple find another reason that can explain for the increase of the number of pickpoketing during the periods of the signs, not neccesarily " why signs facilitate pickpocketing".

Pleaze notice that: the last sentence says "a per-capita rate"? Please explain this phrase to have better explanation!

Ian Stewart wrote:
I don't think this is a good question at all; I can justify almost all of the answer choices by making appropriate assumptions, yet can justify none of them without making assumptions.

Answer B also describes a change since the signs were posted. It's certainly not far-fetched to think that pickpockets can operate more easily in a crowded environment, so B seems like a justifiable answer.

lunarpower wrote:

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote: Not a very good question, IMHO. It's trying to play on the "reported number is not the same as real number" issue

nope.

i think you may be reading a little bit too much into this question, and/or hypothesizing interpretations that are not the most likely ones for the statements at hand.
bear in mind how discrepancy problems work: you just have to ascertain exactly which discrepancy you're supposed to explain, and then pick the answer choice that most directly leads to the apparently contradictory effect.

in this case, the weird contradiction that you have to explain is this:
-- signs were erected warning tourists about pickpocketing
BUT
-- pickpocketing actually increased.

therefore, you just have to find some consideration that reasonably explains why the warning signs would actually facilitate pickpocketing.
choice (c) explains this quite well -- if tourists are rummaging through their pockets, then pickpockets can simply watch them and know exactly where their valuables are kept, therefore making the pickpockets' job much, much easier.

this problem has nothing to do with "actual versus reported cases", as that distinction is not mentioned anywhere in the passage.