Crimes- argument against

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:32 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:1 members

Crimes- argument against

by kanha81 » Tue May 19, 2009 7:39 pm
Crimes are mainly committed by the young, and for this reason merely increasing the number of police officers or expenditures on police services has little effect on reducing the crime rate. In fact, the only factor associated with a crime-rate drop is a decrease in the number of people in the community aged fourteen to thirty.

The findings above can best serve as part of an argument against

(A) the likelihood that any law enforcement program will be effective in reducing the crime rate within a short time

(B) increasing prison terms for young people found guilty of crimes

(C) introducing compulsory military conscription for people aged seventeen to nineteen

(D) raising the age at which students are permitted to leave school

(E) a community’s plan to increase the number of recreational and educational activities in which young adults can participate

Explain your answers.
Want to Beat GMAT.
Always do what you're afraid to do. Whoooop GMAT
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:00 am
Thanked: 6 times

by anksgupta » Tue May 19, 2009 7:47 pm
IMO A

The premise says that police forces and expenditure on them is needless as crime can only be mitigated by decrease in the number of people in the community aged fourteen to thirty.

A: goes directly with premise showing disregard to law enforcement programme

B: It supports authors claim

C: Not relevant

D: Not relevant

E: Will support the author

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:55 pm
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:1 members

Re: Crimes- argument against

by vinaynp » Tue May 19, 2009 7:53 pm
kanha81 wrote:Crimes are mainly committed by the young, and for this reason merely increasing the number of police officers or expenditures on police services has little effect on reducing the crime rate. In fact, the only factor associated with a crime-rate drop is a decrease in the number of people in the community aged fourteen to thirty.

The findings above can best serve as part of an argument against

(A) the likelihood that any law enforcement program will be effective in reducing the crime rate within a short time

(B) increasing prison terms for young people found guilty of crimes

(C) introducing compulsory military conscription for people aged seventeen to nineteen

(D) raising the age at which students are permitted to leave school

(E) a community’s plan to increase the number of recreational and educational activities in which young adults can participate

Explain your answers.
(Increasing the number of police officers or expenditures on police services) = Law enforcement program [LEP]

LEP has no effect on reducing the crimes. Hence, we should not be using LEP for reducing crimes.

IMO A

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:32 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:1 members

by kanha81 » Tue May 19, 2009 7:57 pm
OA is [spoiler][A][/spoiler]

I had a tough time understanding the question as it said which one would argue against the agrument?

How can this question be better framed, if you know what I am trying to say?

Thanks a bunch.
Want to Beat GMAT.
Always do what you're afraid to do. Whoooop GMAT

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:28 am

by mason77 » Sun May 15, 2016 2:24 pm
I believe the correct answer should be A.