Kaplan CR

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:55 am
Location: San Francisco, CA
Thanked: 4 times

Kaplan CR

by phoenix111 » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:11 am
In following CR question, I easily eliminated the 3 irrelevent options but got stuck in the remaining two:

Staristics show that more than half of the nation's murder victims knew their assailants; in fact, 24 percent last year were killed by relatives. Nor was death always completely unexpected.In one study, about half the murder victims in a particular city had called for police protection at least five times during the 24 months before they were murdered. Nonetheless, most people are more likely to fear being killed by a stranger in an unfamiliar situation than by a friend or relative at home.

Which of the following , if true, best explains the attitude of most people to the likelyhood of being murdered?

1) Statistics are likely to be discounted no matter what the source, if their implication seems to run counter to the common sense.

4)Most people do not consider themselves to be in the high risk groups in which murder occurs frequently between relations, but they do see themselves as at least mininally susceptible to random violence.


Ans is 4


I would appreciate if any Instructor can help me eliminate one of these.
Thanks in advance.
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 » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:13 am
Assuming you found the conclusion to the passage. Read the question carefully,

if true, best explains the attitude of most people to the likelyhood of being murdered?

It asks you about attitude of people in specific, statement 1 seems to be a general statement and does not answer the question as well as (4) does.

Also the source of the statistics is not the point here.

In the passage, they talk about stats and then conclude that inspite of these stats people are more likely in fear of being killed by a stranger than being killed by a relative. (4) addresses this perfectly as people dont see themselves being in these groups

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:24 pm
Thanked: 37 times
Followed by:6 members

by navami » Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:33 am
4 is the ans.
1 also stands correct but unfortunately , it is highly generic ...
This time no looking back!!!
Navami

Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:32 am
Pay attention to the interpretation of common sense. It may not be common sense to expect violence in an unknown situation
I Seek Explanations Not Answers

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:34 am
Thanked: 38 times
Followed by:1 members

by sl750 » Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:23 am
This argument doesn't make much sense to me. Are we assuming that this information was collected prior
to the victim becoming a victim?

"Statistics show that more than half of the nation's murder victims knew their assailants"