Police Chief of Megalopolis: Five years ago, the city's police department introduced innovative policing strategies. Since then, the crime rate...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Boldface

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Police Chief of Megalopolis:

Five years ago, the city's police department introduced innovative policing strategies. Since then, the crime rate in Megalopolis has declined significantly. Our new strategies should be credited with bringing about the decline. It has been objected that there have been significant declines during the past five years in crime rates throughout the nation and that therefore Megalopolis' crime rate would probably have declined even without the new policing strategies. Once we had introduced the new strategies, however, they were soon adopted by police departments in cities throughout the nation, and it was only then that crime rates in those cities began to decline.

In the police chief's argument, the two boldface portions play which of the following roles?

The first presents a phenomenon whose interpretation is at issue in the argument; the second presents a claim that the police chief denies.

The first presents a phenomenon whose interpretation is at issue in the argument; the second presents evidence that has been used to undermine the police chief's interpretation of that phenomenon.

The first presents evidence, the accuracy of which the police chief questions; the second supplies a reason for the police chief to question the accuracy of that evidence.

The first presents evidence that has been used to support the hypothesis that has been proposed as an alternative to the police chief's hypothesis; the second provides evidence to weaken that support.

The first and the second each provide evidence that has been offered to support an objection to the police chief's view.

Solution

Understanding the Passage

Text from Passage	Analysis
"Five years ago, the city's police department introduced innovative policing strategies. Since then, the crime rate in Megalopolis has declined significantly."	What it says: The police department started new methods 5 years ago, and crime has dropped a lot since then. Visualization: 2019: New policing strategies introduced → 2024: Crime rate dropped from 100 crimes/month to 40 crimes/month What it does: Establishes the basic facts and timeline that will form the foundation of the argument Source: Author's (Police Chief's) factual statement
"Our new strategies should be credited with bringing about the decline."	What it says: The Police Chief believes their new methods caused the crime reduction. Visualization: New strategies → 60% crime reduction (from 100 to 40 crimes/month) What it does: States the main conclusion the Police Chief wants to prove Source: Author's (Police Chief's) conclusion
"It has been objected that"	What it says: Someone has raised a counterargument against the Police Chief's conclusion. What it does: Introduces opposition to the main conclusion Source: Author acknowledging others' views
(Boldface 1) "there have been significant declines during the past five years in crime rates throughout the nation"	What it says: Crime has dropped significantly across the entire country during the same 5-year period. Visualization: Megalopolis: 100→40 crimes/month, National average: 120→50 crimes/month, indicating nationwide trend What it does: Provides evidence that challenges the Police Chief's conclusion by suggesting an alternative explanation Source: Others' objection (opposing view)
"and that therefore Megalopolis' crime rate would probably have declined even without the new policing strategies."	What it says: Critics conclude that Megalopolis would have seen crime reduction anyway, even without the new strategies. Visualization: With strategies: 100→40 crimes/month; Hypothetical without strategies: 100→50 crimes/month (following national trend) What it does: Completes the counterargument that directly opposes the main conclusion Source: Others' objection (opposing view)
"Once we had introduced the new strategies, however,"	What it says: The Police Chief begins a counter-response to the objection. What it does: Signals the start of the Police Chief's defense of their position Source: Author's (Police Chief's) rebuttal
(Boldface 2) "they were soon adopted by police departments in cities throughout the nation"	What it says: Other cities across the country quickly started using Megalopolis' new policing strategies. Visualization: 2019: Megalopolis adopts strategies → 2020-2021: 50+ cities nationwide adopt same strategies What it does: Provides a key fact that will support the Police Chief's counter-response Source: Author's (Police Chief's) factual claim
"and it was only then that crime rates in those cities began to decline."	What it says: The nationwide crime decline happened only after other cities adopted Megalopolis' strategies. Visualization: Timeline: 2019 Megalopolis adopts → 2020-2021 other cities adopt → 2021-2024 nationwide crime drops from 120→50 crimes/month What it does: Completes the Police Chief's rebuttal by arguing their strategies caused the national decline Source: Author's (Police Chief's) conclusion

Overall Structure

The Police Chief is defending their conclusion against a counterargument. They present their position, acknowledge an objection, then provide a counter-response that turns the objection into support for their original conclusion.

Main Conclusion: The new policing strategies should be credited with bringing about the crime decline in Megalopolis.

Boldface Segments

Boldface 1: there have been significant declines during the past five years in crime rates throughout the nation
Boldface 2: they were soon adopted by police departments in cities throughout the nation

Boldface Understanding

Boldface 1:

Function: Part of a counterargument that challenges the Police Chief's conclusion by providing alternative evidence
Direction: Opposite direction - it opposes the author's conclusion (even though the author is just reporting others' views)

Boldface 2:

Function: Key evidence in the Police Chief's rebuttal that supports their original conclusion
Direction: Same direction - it supports the author's conclusion

Structural Classification

Boldface 1:

Structural Role: Counterevidence - factual evidence cited by opponents to undermine the main conclusion
Predicted Answer Patterns: "evidence cited against the conclusion," "part of an objection," "counterevidence"

Boldface 2:

Structural Role: Supporting evidence - factual claim used to defend the main conclusion
Predicted Answer Patterns: "evidence supporting the conclusion," "part of the author's defense," "supporting fact"

Answer Choices Explained

The first presents a phenomenon whose interpretation is at issue in the argument; the second presents a claim that the police chief denies.

"The first presents a phenomenon whose interpretation is at issue in the argument" - ✓ CORRECT - The nationwide crime decline is indeed a phenomenon that both sides interpret differently
"the second presents a claim that the police chief denies" - ✗ WRONG - The Police Chief doesn't deny that other cities adopted their strategies; this is actually a fact they use to support their argument

The first presents a phenomenon whose interpretation is at issue in the argument; the second presents evidence that has been used to undermine the police chief's interpretation of that phenomenon.

"The first presents a phenomenon whose interpretation is at issue in the argument" - ✓ CORRECT - The nationwide decline is interpreted differently by critics vs. the Police Chief
"the second presents evidence that has been used to undermine the police chief's interpretation of that phenomenon" - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface actually supports the Police Chief's interpretation, not undermines it

The first presents evidence, the accuracy of which the police chief questions; the second supplies a reason for the police chief to question the accuracy of that evidence.

"The first presents evidence, the accuracy of which the police chief questions" - ✗ WRONG - The Police Chief doesn't question whether nationwide crime decline occurred; they accept this as true
"the second supplies a reason for the police chief to question the accuracy of that evidence" - ✗ WRONG - This compounds the error from the first part since the premise is incorrect

"The first presents evidence that has been used to support the hypothesis that has been proposed as an alternative to the police chief's hypothesis" - ✓ CORRECT - The nationwide decline is used by critics to support the alternative hypothesis that external factors, not Megalopolis' strategies, caused the decline
"the second provides evidence to weaken that support" - ✓ CORRECT - By showing other cities adopted Megalopolis' strategies before their crime declined, this undermines the alternative explanation and supports the Police Chief's original hypothesis

The first and the second each provide evidence that has been offered to support an objection to the police chief's view.

"The first and the second each provide evidence that has been offered to support an objection to the police chief's view" - ✗ WRONG - While the first boldface does support an objection, the second boldface actually supports the Police Chief's view, not the objection

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...