Critical Reasoning

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?
"¢ City X experienced a drastic reduction in crime after implementing a proposal similar to that proposed by the Police Commissioner of city Y.
"¢ The severity of crimes committed in any district of the city decreases when additional police officers are moved into that district.
"¢ 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.
"¢ There are more low-crime districts than high-crime districts in city Y.
"¢ Districts of the city from which police officers are removed do not experience significant crime increases shortly after the removal of those officers.

Why A should not be the answer. Though I opted E but A is also very strong to pick. If we negate A then the plan for City Y is not supported.

Please explain.

E

Option A says

City X had positive results by implementing C's plans.

Negating A --> City X did not have positive results by implementing C's plans
Conclusion --> Implementing C's plan will reduce no of crimes in City Y
Effect ------> No impact..city x could have different reasons for the plans not working, such as corrupt officers, etc.

Versus Option E perfectly nullifies the conclusion when negated


Negating E --> Crime increases in districts from where POs are shifted
Conclusion --> Implementing C's plan will reduce no of crimes
Effect ------> Crime may not reduced (Suppose by shifting POs crime decreased in HCD by 20 nos versus it increases by 25 nos in LCD post removal of POs)