Critical Reasoning

guerrero wrote:Over the past ten years, the population of Dismaston has grown five times as large as it was. During this time, the average income in the city has risen substantially, and a tremendous amount of capital has flowed into city. An independent audit found that, somewhat surprisingly, the number of violent felonies reported per year is now lower than it was ten years ago.

Each of the following statements below, if true, would explain the somewhat surprising finding EXCEPT:

My reasoning : How is B better than C ?

In B- every violent crime is getting recorded because of the introduction of computerized filing system.

So, the criminals 're now aware that their activity is under scanner and they 'll refrain ( at least think twice) before commiting any crime .Doesn't this lead to decrease reduction in violent crimes ?
It also introduces a new information i.e computerized filing system ,which helps streanghten the conclusion- the suprising finding .


C - Looks irrelevant . How is lengthening felony convicts' waiting period for parole going to address a surprising finding that reported crimes 've decreased ?

Moreover, How can we say that criminals after getting released from the prisons 've a propensity to return to criminal activity ? Any one serving time in prison is expected to become a normal citizen , so , lengthening his/her waiting period has no effect on the conclusion .

Hello guerrero & all others,
I'm happy to help. I am the author of this Magoosh question, and the OA is (B). I will explain.

We want to explain a decrease in the number of violent felonies reported.

(A) White collar crimes, which are almost always non-violent, tend to replace street-crimes during times of prosperity.
During prosperity, as Dismaston is experience, there is a rise in non-violent white collar crimes, and a corresponding drop in street crimes, many of which are violent. Thus, fewer violent crimes.

(B) The police now have a computerized filing system, so that it is almost impossible for a violent crime to be unrecorded.
If the police didn't have this system five years ago, that would mean at that time some violent crimes occurred, but because of filing snafus or other mistakes, the crimes weren't properly recorded. They slipped through the cracks. Thus, at that time, there would be fewer reported violent crimes than there were violent crimes that occurred. If the violent crime rate remained the same, and they got this new computer system, then every violent crime would be recorded, and the number of reported violent crimes would rise to be equal to the number of violent crimes that actually happened. If anything, this fact would explain an increase in the number of reported violent crimes, so it certainly does nothing to explain the decrease.
Even direct harsh penalties that criminals will suffer are often weak deterrents at best. If the police have a new computer filing system that records the crimes, that's not going to provide any deterrent to the harden criminals who perform violent crimes. With all due respect, guerrero, you are not a violent thug. You are thinking about this as an intelligent, college-educated, rational person, not the way a violent thug would think about it. Even when states change penalties, say, from 10 years to 30 years --- that's a HUGE change with drastic life consequences, and that sort of thing provides almost zero deterrent. If the police switch what kind of bookkeeping system they are using, that will have absolute no impact on violent criminals.
This choice doesn't explain at all a drop in crimes, so this is the best answer to the "except" question.

(C) During this time, the state considerably lengthened felony convicts' waiting period for parole.
If the parole period is lengthen, that means even if new convicts are going to prison at the same rate, fewer are coming out. More in & fewer out means a decrease in those folks on the streets, which would result in a decrease in violent crimes.

(D) The police force has expanded in number and is equipped with the latest crime detection technology.
Cops have better equipment, so they can catch the bad guys better and arrest them and sent them to prison. That results in fewer violent crimes.

(E) The city is now much better lit at night, and security cameras protect a large number of public venues.
Lights & security cameras are deterrents for crime, and also enhance detection & apprehension & conviction. It become easily to catch & try the criminal, and much easier to convict them if we have video evidence of the crime. That involves fewer getting off the hook when they are on trial, and more going to prison, which reduces the number of violent crimes.

Does all this make sense?
Mike