Parktown

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:55 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

Parktown

by metallicafan » Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:30 pm
Citizens of parktown are worried by the increased frequency of serious crimes committed by local teenagers. In response, the city government has instituted a series of measures designed to keep teenagers at home in the late evening. Even if the measures succeed in keeping teenagers at home, however, they are unlikely to affect the problem that concerns citizens, since most crimes committed by local teenagers take place between 3pm and 6pm

Which of the following,if true, most substantially weakens the argument ?
GPrep Q

1) Similar measures adopted in other place have failed to reduce the no of teenagers in the late evening
2) Crimes committed by teenagers in afternoon are mostly small thefts and inconsequential vandalism
3) teenagers are much less likely to commit serious crimes when they are at home than when they are not at home
4) Any decrease in the need for police patrols in late evening would not mean that there could be more intensive patrolling in the afternoon
5) The schools in parktown have introduced a number of after school programs that will be available to teenagers until 6pm on weekday afternoons

I agree with the OA, however I have a doubt with E.
According to other forum, E is incorrect because it's completely irrelevant to the actual issue treated in the passage. They say "the passage is solely concerned with the effect of the new measures. therefore, we don't care if there are other programs that might have a mitigating effect on the crime rate."
Based on this, I understand that it doesn't matter whether there are other possible causes that could take us to the desired effect, the goal is to find a choice that shows us that the cause mentioned in the conclusion is having the effect we want, right?
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2013 2:56 am
Thanked: 4 times

by luckypiscian » Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:25 am
Look at the Problem -
"increased frequency of serious crimes"
Now Look at the Conclusion
"Even if the measures succeed in keeping teenagers at home, however, they are unlikely to affect the problem that concerns citizens, since most crimes committed by local teenagers take place between 3pm and 6pm "
It talks about failure of the measures to affect the problem.
The correct choice should show measures having a positive effect on the problem. i.e. reduce serious crime rate
I think B becomes the obvious choice now
"Crimes committed by teenagers in afternoon are mostly small thefts and inconsequential vandalism"
measures succeed in keeping teenagers at home in evening when most serious crimes were committed

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:45 pm
Thanked: 12 times
GMAT Score:700

by Gaurav 2013-fall » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:54 pm
Citizens of parktown are worried by the increased frequency of serious crimes committed by local teenagers. In response, the city government has instituted a series of measures designed to keep teenagers at home in the late evening. Even if the measures succeed in keeping teenagers at home, however, they are unlikely to affect the problem that concerns citizens, since most crimes committed by local teenagers take place between 3pm and 6pm

Which of the following,if true, most substantially weakens the argument ?
GPrep Q

To weaken this we need a statement that says explicitly or implies that frequency of serious crimes by teenagers will reduce

1) Similar measures adopted in other place have failed to reduce the no of teenagers in the late evening (strengthens)
2) Crimes committed by teenagers in afternoon are mostly small thefts and inconsequential vandalism (serious crime should come down because teenagers are ta home in the evening and in the afternoon the crimes are inconsequential)
3) teenagers are much less likely to commit serious crimes when they are at home than when they are not at home (not related)
4) Any decrease in the need for police patrols in late evening would not mean that there could be more intensive patrolling in the afternoon (not related)
5) The schools in parktown have introduced a number of after school programs that will be available to teenagers until 6pm on weekday afternoons (although this one is tempting, I feel for this initially.....this choice introduces new elements ......i.e. school and weekdays...so we need to be mindful of this. Now, what if the teenagers who are committing crime are not attending the schools...also what if these teenagers are committing crimes on weekends?....so if you ask these questions, this choice looks like a bad choice.)



so my choice would be B
Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It is a very mean and nasty place and it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't how hard you hit; it's about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward. How much you can take, and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done. Now, if you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hit, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you are because of him, or her, or anybody. Cowards do that and that ain't you. You're better than that! (Rocky VI)

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:11 am
This is a great example of the type of shift in language that an expert would be looking for when reading the stimulus. The early part of the stimulus speaks of citizens concerned about the increase in serious crime. The conclusion that the curfew will not be effective does not say "serious crime" but just "crime."

When you see a shift like that there is a great chance that you have just deduced the answer. Since you are looking to weaken the argument you are most likely going to mention that difference and exploit that in order to undermine the argument. That is what choice B does.

For more on spotting these shifts in language please read this: https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2013/02/ ... ng-ability

As far as choice E, this is a plan question and an alternate plan is irrelevant. You must stick to the plan that the argument discusses.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course