Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. However, this action is clearly counter to the governor's ultimate goal, since after being released from prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. |
|
| Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. |
|
| However, this action is clearly counter to the governor's ultimate goal, since after being released from prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts by describing the governor's goal (reduce crime) and approach (get tough, including removing college courses). Then it flips this on its head by showing that one specific "tough" policy actually works against the goal, using evidence about crime rates after release.
Main Conclusion:
The governor's decision to remove college courses from prisons contradicts his goal of reducing crime rates.
Logical Structure:
Evidence (inmates with college courses commit fewer crimes after release) → Therefore, removing college courses works against crime reduction → This contradicts the governor's stated goal of reducing crime
Prethinking:
Question type:
Assumption - We need to find what the argument takes for granted. The argument concludes that denying college courses is counter to the governor's goal based on evidence that inmates who took courses had lower recidivism rates.
Precision of Claims
The key claims involve comparative crime rates (inmates with college courses vs. without), policy effectiveness (college courses leading to crime reduction), and causal relationships (removing courses undermines crime reduction goals).
Strategy
For assumption questions, we identify what must be true for the conclusion to follow logically from the premises. We look for gaps between the evidence (lower recidivism for college-educated inmates) and conclusion (removing courses hurts crime reduction). The argument assumes the college courses actually caused the lower crime rates, that this pattern will continue, and that the statistical relationship represents a meaningful causal connection.
This choice focuses on whether college courses deter people from committing crimes in the first place. However, the argument is specifically about recidivism - whether former inmates commit crimes after release, not about deterring initial criminal behavior. The argument's logic doesn't depend on college courses preventing first-time crimes; it relies on their effect on repeat offenses after release. This assumption isn't necessary for the argument to work.
This claims former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than the general population. This is far too broad and isn't required by the argument. The argument only compares inmates who took college courses with those who didn't - it doesn't need to make any claims about how either group compares to the general population. The argument's logic works fine even if both groups of former inmates have higher crime rates than average citizens.
This directly addresses the core logical gap in the argument. The argument assumes that the difference in recidivism rates between inmates who took college courses and those who didn't is actually caused by the courses themselves. If the inmates who chose to take college courses were already less likely to reoffend (due to factors like motivation, education level, or type of crime committed), then removing the courses wouldn't necessarily increase crime rates. The argument must assume the groups were comparable except for the college courses to conclude that removing courses undermines crime reduction.
This compares college-level courses to high school courses, but the argument doesn't mention high school courses at all. The argument only discusses the removal of college-level courses and their impact. Whether high school courses are more or less effective is irrelevant to the logic connecting college course removal to increased crime rates.
This cynically reinterprets the governor's motivations as political rather than genuine crime reduction. However, the argument takes the governor's stated goal of crime reduction at face value and doesn't need to assume anything about his true motivations. Even if the governor had mixed motives, the argument's logic about college courses being counterproductive to crime reduction would still hold.