mgmt_gmat wrote:The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents) in Meadowbrook is
60 percent higher now than it was four years ago. The corresponding increase for Parkdale is only 10 percent. These figures support the conclusion that residents of Meadowbrook are more likely to become victims of violent crime than are residents of Parkdale.

The argument above is flawed because it fails to take into account

A. changes in the population density of both Parkdale and Meadowbrook over the past four years
Incorrect : Changes in population density of both parkdale n meadowbrook does not tell us anything about the reason why the above argument can be flawed.

B. how the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale
Incorrect : Again rate of population growth is irrelevant to the scope of the above argument.

C. the ratio of violent to nonviolent crimes committed during the past four years in Meadowbrook and Parkdale
Incorrect : How does ratio affect the conclusion that meadowbrook residents are MORE LIKELY to become victims of violent crime than the residents of Parkdale. Eliminated.

D. the violent crime rates in Meadowbrook and Parkdale four years ago
Correct : This can be easily illustrated with an example : A 10% rise from 100 crimes per 1,000 residents = 10 victims is more than a 60% rise from 10 crimes per 1,000 residents (6 victims).

E. how Meadowbrook's expenditures for crime prevention over the past four years compare to Parkdale's expenditures
Incorrect : Out of scope.