In each of the past five years, Barraland's prison population has increased. Yet, according to official government statistics, for none...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
In each of the past five years, Barraland's prison population has increased. Yet, according to official government statistics, for none of those years has there been either an increase in the number of criminal cases brought to trial, or an increase in the rate at which convictions have been obtained. Clearly, therefore, the percentage of people convicted of crimes who are being given prison sentences is on the increase.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| In each of the past five years, Barraland's prison population has increased. |
|
| Yet, according to official government statistics, for none of those years has there been either an increase in the number of criminal cases brought to trial, or an increase in the rate at which convictions have been obtained. |
|
| Clearly, therefore, the percentage of people convicted of crimes who are being given prison sentences is on the increase. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts with an puzzling observation (prison population rising), then gives us data that makes this puzzle even more confusing (trials and conviction rates haven't changed), and finally offers an explanation that solves the puzzle (judges must be handing out prison sentences more often).
Main Conclusion:
The percentage of convicted people who are being sentenced to prison is increasing.
Logical Structure:
This is a 'best explanation' argument. We have a mystery (more prisoners despite same conviction numbers), and the author eliminates other possibilities to conclude that sentencing practices must have changed. The logic is: if prison population is up, but the number of convictions stays the same, then a higher percentage of those convictions must be resulting in prison time.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that reduces our belief in the conclusion that the percentage of convicted people getting prison sentences is increasing
Precision of Claims
The argument makes specific claims about quantities (prison population numbers, trial numbers, conviction rates) and percentages (rate of prison sentences among convicted people)
Strategy
To weaken this argument, we need to find alternative explanations for why prison population increased even though trial numbers and conviction rates stayed the same. The author assumes that longer prison sentences is the only explanation, but there could be other reasons for more people being in prison
In Barraland the range of punishments that can be imposed instead of a prison sentence is wide.
'In Barraland the range of punishments that can be imposed instead of a prison sentence is wide.' This doesn't weaken the argument at all. The fact that alternatives to prison exist doesn't explain why prison population increased while conviction numbers stayed the same. If anything, having wide alternatives might make us wonder why prison population still rose, but it doesn't provide a competing explanation for the trend we observed.
Over the last ten years, overcrowding in the prisons of Barraland has essentially been eliminated as a result of an ambitious program of prison construction.
'Over the last ten years, overcrowding in the prisons of Barraland has essentially been eliminated as a result of an ambitious program of prison construction.' This is irrelevant to our argument. Building more prisons and eliminating overcrowding doesn't explain why more people are ending up in prison. We're trying to explain why prison population increased, not whether the prisons can handle the increase.
Ten years ago, Barraland reformed its criminal justice system, imposing longer minimum sentences for those crimes for which a prison sentence had long been mandatory.
'Ten years ago, Barraland reformed its criminal justice system, imposing longer minimum sentences for those crimes for which a prison sentence had long been mandatory.' This seriously weakens the argument by offering a competing explanation. The author concludes that a higher percentage of convicted people are getting prison sentences, but this choice suggests that the same people are getting prison sentences - they're just staying longer. If minimum sentences increased 10 years ago, people convicted in recent years would still be serving these extended terms, causing prison population to rise without any change in the rate at which people receive prison sentences.
Barraland has been supervising convicts on parole more closely in recent years, with the result that parole violations have become significantly less frequent.
'Barraland has been supervising convicts on parole more closely in recent years, with the result that parole violations have become significantly less frequent.' This actually supports the argument rather than weakening it. If fewer people are violating parole, that means fewer people are being sent back to prison for violations. This makes the prison population increase even more puzzling and strengthens the author's conclusion that more people must be getting initial prison sentences.
The number of people in Barraland who feel that crime is on the increase is significantly greater now than it was five years ago.
'The number of people in Barraland who feel that crime is on the increase is significantly greater now than it was five years ago.' Public perception about crime doesn't affect the actual legal outcomes. The argument is based on hard data about trials, convictions, and prison populations - not on what people think is happening. This choice is completely irrelevant to explaining why prison population increased while trial and conviction numbers stayed constant.