-
[email protected]
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 429
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:38 pm
- Thanked: 6 times
- Followed by:4 members
Hi shibsriz,
This CR prompt is based on "causality" - the idea that one things causes (or leads to) another.
Here, we're told that two cities have equal proportions of crime to population. We're told city M has 15% more GUN OWNERS and city C has 23% FEWER HOMICIDES. The prompt then concludes that the lower % of gun owners in city C is what's led to the lower % of homicides.
In real basic terms: fewer guns ----> fewer homicides
This a remarkably "thin" argument and would be very easy to weaken. However, we're NOT asked to weaken it, we're asked to define an assumption behind it. When dealing with causality, the underlying assumption is that NOTHING ELSE could have been the cause of the result. In this prompt, the assumption is that NOTHING ELSE could be the reason for fewer homicides.
Answer E tells us that there isn't some other significant thing that could prevent homicides in city C.
GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
