Critical Reasoning

Newspaper editorial:
In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to the governor’s ultimate goal, since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.
B. Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.
C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.
D. Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.
E. The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.

OA: A

The debate is between A and C


Stuart/Ian or Verbal experts on this forum please shed some light on this(point out the conclusion and why a certain answers choice is the best assumption)


I feel the conclusion is the action to stop inmates from taking college courses to reduce crime acts as acounter to stopping the crime.

If we negate C then the argument falls apart. If the inmates who took college courses and did less crime than others were less likely to have commited the crime in the first place then the action taken by the governor to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses does not counter his ultimate goal.

evidence must be representative (see Princeton Review) so C is correct

Thanks! Will wait on more responses also.

Good Qn
I too agree that there is a tough choice between A and C.

As in my previous posts, Assumption questions -- I first tend to weaken the argument and then negate the weakening.

So points to weaken the argument .

a) Perhaps the group A- people willing to take the course are softer and do not commit crimes at all. Perhaps the group A are well educated and want to reform and hence subscribe for course. Given this criteria, then removing the course may not have any effect on this group as they are already trying to reform.
Hence to negate this weakening point -- We should assume that the group A and group B are equally likely to commit the crimes .
That gives us the option C.

C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

But this option does not go further and mention that the course indeed helps in reducing the crime. Although the groups are equally likely to commit the crime, it is also necessary to assume that the course is indeed beneficial and reduces the crime.


My second weakening point
b) May be it is not the course but other things will influence a person to commit the crime. Even though a group might have subscribed to a course, but that group is likely to commit crime later due to other reasons.
This line of weakening mentions about the course and its implications.
HEnce when we negate the weakening..--->we get the option A..

A. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

This option mentions that by not taking the course, that group / person is unlikely to not commit a crime. By not being able to take the course, the person is still likely to commit the crime. in which case the course stands out as a reform for that person.

My $0.02.

matterover, thanks for taking the time and providing a detailed post.

Can u address this from ur point of view?

I feel the conclusion is the action to stop inmates from taking college courses to reduce crime acts as acounter to stopping the crime.

If we negate C then the argument falls apart. If the inmates who took college courses and did less crime than others were less likely to have commited the crime in the first place then the action taken by the governor to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses does not counter his ultimate goal

Thanks so much Ian!

Regards,
Cramya

cramya wrote:Thanks so much Ian!

Regards,
Cramya

But OA is A isn't it ??

I think OA is right as always, but sometimes unfortunately )
I eliminated C because it's talking about some actual group of people - "The group" - 1-st of all there is no such concrete group of inmates mentioned in the passage. Second, when someone is getting tough on somebody in an whatsoever attempt - such actions may be estimated only as deterrent.
Third,
C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.
: means that after realising and gotten all courses they are still inclined to crimes(may be my english is just not perfect and I got it wrong)

O eah, by the way, for fastidious and precise:

https://www.urch.com/forums/gmat-critica ... -rate.html

'already' means 'before they began taking their courses'.

Cant get better; perfect explanation.

Thanks again.

Regards,
CR

Ian Stewart wrote: .........................
I can assure you the answer to this question is not A. The posts on the forum you linked to above generally seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word 'already' in answer choice C; here 'already' means 'before they began taking their courses'.

appreciate your fervour, already - was the case indeed

Good Question Cramya and Thanks to Ian for excellent explanation.

Nice learning..