Statistics and murder

This topic has expert replies
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:46 am

Statistics and murder

by muhtasimhassan » Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:20 am
Statistics show that more than half of the nation's murder victims knew their assailants; in fact, 24% last year were killed by relatives. Nor was death completely unexpected. In one study, about half the murder victims in a particular city had called for police protection at least 5 times during the 24 months before they were murdered. Nonetheless, most people are more likely to fear being killed by a stranger in an unfamiliar situation that by a friend or relative at home.

Which of the following, if true, best describes the reaction of most people to the likelihood of being murdered?

a. Statistics are likely to be discounted no matter what the source, if their implication seems to run counter to common sense.

b. In the face of such upsetting problems as murders and assaults, most people are likely to react emotionally than rationally.

c. A study taken in only one city is not likely to have an effect on attitudes until similar studies have been undertaken at the national level and yielded similar results

d. most people do not consider themselves to be in the high-risk groups in which murder occurs frequently between relations, but do see themselves as at least minimally susceptible to random violence.

e. people who seek police protection from relatives and friends are often unwilling to press charges when the emotions of the moment have cooled.


Answer- [spoiler] i was confused between B and D. Then i picked B, but turns out the answer is D. It's from one of the Kaplan books.[/spoiler]

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:00 pm
Thanked: 136 times
Followed by:62 members

by KapTeacherEli » Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:34 am
Hi Muhtasimhassan,

Can you double-check that you transcribed this problem correctly? I haven't looked at this problem in a while, but if memory serves, I think you might have missed a word or two in the question stem. (unless this problem got updated when we changed editions and I didn't notice! :-) )

Thanks!
Eli Meyer
Kaplan GMAT Teacher
Cambridge, MA
www.kaptest.com/gmat

ImageImageImage

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:46 am

by muhtasimhassan » Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:01 am
KapTeacherEli wrote:Hi Muhtasimhassan,

Can you double-check that you transcribed this problem correctly? I haven't looked at this problem in a while, but if memory serves, I think you might have missed a word or two in the question stem. (unless this problem got updated when we changed editions and I didn't notice! :-) )

Thanks!
Hey, yes i did make a typo.

The questions stem is: which of the following, if true, best explains the reaction of most people to the likelihood of being murdered.?

Instead of the word explain, i wrote describes.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:58 am
Thanked: 2 times
GMAT Score:650

by Acorn » Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:17 am
Which of the following, if true, best explains the reaction of most people to the likelihood of being murdered?

##This question stem is of explain the paradox cateogry. The paradox is: More number of murders are committed by relatives but people fear strangers more than the relatives.


a. Statistics are likely to be discounted no matter what the source, if their implication seems to run counter to common sense.
## Out of Scope.

b. In the face of such upsetting problems as murders and assaults, most people are likely to react emotionally than rationally.

## Explains one side of the paradox.

c. A study taken in only one city is not likely to have an effect on attitudes until similar studies have been undertaken at the national level and yielded similar results

## How the Statistics is generated is out of scope.

d. most people do not consider themselves to be in the high-risk groups in which murder occurs frequently between relations, but do see themselves as at least minimally susceptible to random violence.

## It explains both sides of the paradox.


e. people who seek police protection from relatives and friends are often unwilling to press charges when the emotions of the moment have cooled.

##Only one side is talked about.






Hope that helps.

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:00 pm
Thanked: 136 times
Followed by:62 members

by KapTeacherEli » Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:58 am
Acorn wrote: d. most people do not consider themselves to be in the high-risk groups in which murder occurs frequently between relations, but do see themselves as at least minimally susceptible to random violence.
Good explanation, Acorn!

To clarify, the apparent paradox is caused by an unstated assumption that both murders from people you know and murders from strangers are randomly distributed. The correct answer points out that because random murders are...well, random! the fear of those murders is widespread, even if the risks are very low. However, most murders of friends and family are thought to take place in specific, high-risk environments. Those outside such environments don't feel afraid.

Hope this helps!
Eli Meyer
Kaplan GMAT Teacher
Cambridge, MA
www.kaptest.com/gmat

ImageImageImage

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:24 pm
Thanked: 37 times
Followed by:6 members

by navami » Thu Aug 25, 2011 5:09 am
Nice explanation Thanks
This time no looking back!!!
Navami