Critical Reasoning

Citizen: Each year since 1970, a new record has been set for the number of murders committed in this city. This fact points to the decreasing ability of our law enforcement system to prevent violent crime.

City Official: You overlook the fact that the city's population has risen steadily since 1970. In fact, the number of murder victims per 100 people has actually fallen slightly in the city since 1970.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strongly counter the city official's response?

A) The incidence of fraud has greatly increased in the city since 1970.

B) The rate of murders in the city since 1970 decreased according to the age group of the victim, decreasing more for younger victims.

C) Murders and other violent crimes are more likely to be reported now than they were in 1970.

D) The number of law enforcement officials in the city has increased at a rate judged by city law enforcement experts to be sufficient to serve the city's increased population.

E) If the health care received by assault victims last year had been of the same quality as it was in 1970, the murder rate in the city last year would have turned out to be several times what it actually was.


OA E

E? What say?

IMO C

it is not C!!
That's why it is tricky :S

E seems most obvious. C is definitely a contender but not stronger than E.

Perhaps it is fate!!

This question was just discussed by Brian Galvin in the following article.

https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2011/07/ ... strategies

This should help...

between C and E,

C is actually strengthening officials argument,meaning as more incidents are reported,hence the decrease in the number actually shows that crime has reduced.

E is the only one befitting.

So,
Citizen is saying murders are going up in number. Hence law enforcement system is unable to prevent crime.
City Official rejects it by sating they have decreased.

Question: Counter City Official's remark, (Hence prove crime has gone up > Hence law enforcement system is unable to prevent crime.)

Lets prephrase: 1. There might be a decrease in reporting if murders which will 'most strongly counter city official's response'.

Let's see each answer choice:

A. No relevance of 'incidence of frauds'. Neither Citizen nor city official discussed it.

B. This discusses a decrease in murders, so rather supports the city official's claim.

C. Murders and crimes are more likely to be reported now, if reporting is more, it strengthens the fact that data collected is more accurate. Hence what city official says is even more strengthened, also it is opposite of our prephrase. Hence Reject.

D. If law enforcement officials have increased, crime prevention should become more effective, supports city official's claim, if at all.

E. Now, Health care is able to convert murdered people to people alive (Intentional humor, but very straight point) If this is happening although murders have decreased, crimes have not which have increased --> ('murder rate in the city last year would have turned out to be several times what it actually was.'), hence this rejects city official's claim completely. Strong contender answer.

IMO and most definitely answer should be [spoiler] (E)[/spoiler]

Dear members.. Kindly ignore C.. it is an opposite answer.. it gives support to the offical's words

amit2k9 wrote:between C and E,

C is actually strengthening officials argument,meaning as more incidents are reported,hence the decrease in the number actually shows that crime has reduced.

E is the only one befitting.

E cites an alternate cause to weaken official's cause.