coderversion1 wrote:Over the past few years, violent crime has decreased dramatically in City X. During this period, there has also been an increase in the number of late-night street vending licenses granted by the city, thereby increasing the number of people on the streets at night. Therefore, the reduction in violent crime must be related to increase in vending licenses.
Which of the following if true would cast doubt on the argument above?

A. The amount of nonviolent crime in City X has not changed much over the past few years.
B. A reduction in crime also causes more pedestrians to be out on the streets in evenings.
C. The number of street vendors in City X has increased steadily during the period in question.
D. During the past few years, City X has reduced the amount of city taxes street vendors must pay.
E. Last year, City X increased the number of police officers working at night.
[spoiler]
IMO - C.[/spoiler]

Tani Wolff - Kaplan wrote:IF the presence of street vendors reduces violent crime we would expect it to have a similar impact on non-violent crime. A tells us this does not happen, casting doubt on the argument.

Tani Wolff - Kaplan wrote:IF the presence of street vendors reduces violent crime we would expect it to have a similar impact on non-violent crime. A tells us this does not happen, casting doubt on the argument.

bblast wrote:

Tani Wolff - Kaplan wrote:IF the presence of street vendors reduces violent crime we would expect it to have a similar impact on non-violent crime. A tells us this does not happen, casting doubt on the argument.

Hi Tani,

This is a causal argument. E states "the alternate cause for stated effect"; and hence weakens the argument.


Where am I going wrong ?