critical reasoning city official

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:54 am
Followed by:4 members

critical reasoning city official

by nidhis.1408 » Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:10 pm
City official: In order to revitalize our city's downtown business district, we should increase the number of police officers that patrol the district during business hours. Three years ago, the city reduced the total size of its police force by nearly 20 percent. Since then, retail businesses in the district have experienced a steady decline in revenue.
Any of the following, if true, would be an effective criticism of the city official's recommendation EXCEPT:
A. Two years ago, the city established more rigorous standards for the retention and hiring of its police officers.
B. New businesses offering products or services similar to those in the district have emerged outside the district recently.
C. The number of people who reside in the district has not changed signifi- cantly over the last three years.
D. Businesses operating in the city but outside the district have experienced declining revenues during the last three years.
E. Some of the city's police officers patrol areas outside as well as inside the district.

i couldn't understand the meaning of the passage. was wondering if something is missing in the paragraph.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 966
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:06 am
Thanked: 230 times
Followed by:21 members

by shankar.ashwin » Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:27 pm
Meaning rephrased:

Officials explain in order to revive the city's business district, number of police officers should be increased.
Also provides and example citing decrease in number of policemen caused decline in business revenue.

An effective criticism would be to explain cops could not have caused decrease in revenues (or) provide other explanations for the decrease in revenue.

A: Standards of cops have gone up, this could lead only to better revenues definitely not decrease.

B: Provides an alternative reason for decline in revenues.

D: We are concerned about cops in a district, but this one says cities outside the district have experienced decline in revenues, so cops cannot be a reason for the decline.

E: Does this mean they don't patrol the districts, well it does not say so. Also it talks only about few policemen.

C: this one does not make any claim, nor does it provide an alternate reason for decline. Also this is the only statement which could possibly support the officials claim of cops causing decline in revenues. The officials could explain "Look there has not been a decrease in population, so the decrease in cops has led to this situation". If someone provides a stat that the population has not significantly decreased, he tends to agree with the official. This one definitely cannot be a criticism against the official. C IMO

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:54 am
Followed by:4 members

by nidhis.1408 » Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:40 am
Thanks a lot! i certainly didn't think in this direction!

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:24 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:5 members

by mir.yahya » Sat Nov 05, 2011 8:50 am
Aren't we supposed to be looking for the option that doesn't criticize City official's recommendation?

I need different approach to this. I am getting explanation given above.