In a well-publicized effort to reduce crime, police in Morristown began in 1995 to use surveillance cameras to monitor the...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
In a well-publicized effort to reduce crime, police in Morristown began in 1995 to use surveillance cameras to monitor the downtown shopping district for crime. According to police statistics, however, somewhat more crimes were committed in the downtown shopping district in 1995 than in 1994, whereas elsewhere in the city the number of crimes remained unchanged. Clearly, then, the surveillance cameras installed downtown completely failed in their purpose in 1995.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| In a well-publicized effort to reduce crime, police in Morristown began in 1995 to use surveillance cameras to monitor the downtown shopping district for crime. |
|
| According to police statistics, however, somewhat more crimes were committed in the downtown shopping district in 1995 than in 1994, whereas elsewhere in the city the number of crimes remained unchanged. |
|
| Clearly, then, the surveillance cameras installed downtown completely failed in their purpose in 1995. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts by telling us what the cameras were supposed to do (reduce crime), then shows us what actually happened (crime went up downtown but stayed the same elsewhere), and finally concludes that the cameras completely failed.
Main Conclusion:
The surveillance cameras installed downtown completely failed in their purpose in 1995.
Logical Structure:
The author uses a simple cause-and-effect logic: since crime went up in the area with cameras while staying unchanged elsewhere, the cameras must have failed completely. The evidence (crime statistics) is used to directly support the conclusion about camera failure.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that reduces our belief in the conclusion that the surveillance cameras 'completely failed in their purpose'
Precision of Claims
The argument makes quantity claims about crime numbers (more crimes in 1995 vs 1994 downtown, unchanged elsewhere) and an absolute quality claim about complete failure
Strategy
To weaken this argument, we need to find scenarios that suggest the cameras might actually have been working despite the crime increase. We should look for alternative explanations for why crime went up that don't mean the cameras failed, or evidence that things would have been worse without the cameras
This choice tells us that while everyone knew cameras were installed, they didn't know exactly where. However, this doesn't weaken the argument about the cameras failing. Whether people knew the exact locations or not, we still have the same evidence that crime increased downtown with cameras while staying unchanged elsewhere. The lack of specific location knowledge doesn't provide an alternative explanation for why the crime statistics increased.
This choice confirms that the cameras worked reliably and had minimal downtime. While this shows the cameras functioned mechanically as intended, it doesn't address why crime still increased. In fact, if anything, this might strengthen the argument that the cameras failed since they were working properly but crime still went up. Good mechanical performance doesn't explain away the statistical evidence of increased crime.
This choice provides a crucial alternative explanation for the crime increase. If the cameras helped police detect crimes that previously went unnoticed and unrecorded, then the statistics would naturally show more crimes even if the actual crime rate stayed the same or decreased. This means the apparent increase in crime could be evidence that the cameras were working effectively, not that they failed. This directly undermines the conclusion that the cameras 'completely failed' by suggesting the opposite - they may have been working so well that they revealed previously hidden crimes.
This choice tells us that downtown had higher crime rates in 1994 than other areas. However, this historical information doesn't explain why crime increased from 1994 to 1995 in the downtown area specifically. The argument is based on the change in crime rates after camera installation, not the absolute levels compared to other areas. This doesn't provide an alternative explanation for the post-installation crime increase.
This choice indicates that the arrest rate declined city-wide in 1995. While this might suggest some police effectiveness issues, it doesn't specifically address why crime increased downtown where cameras were installed while remaining unchanged elsewhere. This general decline in arrests doesn't explain the specific pattern of crime increases only in the camera-monitored area.