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?
(This question is from Official Guide. Therefore, because of copyrights, the complete question cannot be copied here. The question can be accessed at GMAT Club)
In each of the past five years, Barraland’s prison population has increased.
In EACH of the last 5 years, the number of people in B’s prisons 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.
According to govt statistics, for each of these five years,
(This statement rules out a couple of reasons for the increase in the prison population. Perhaps, there is another reason. Or perhaps, the govt statistics are incorrect!)
Therefore, the percentage of people convicted of crimes who are being given prison sentences is on the increase.
This is the conclusion.
After eliminating two potential reasons for the increase in the prison population, the author concludes with another reason. In a way, the reasoning goes like this:
Since X and Y cannot be the reason for the event, Z (another reason for the event) must have happened.
This statement talks about the percentage of people convicted of crimes who are being given prison sentences.
This percentage = (Number of people convicted of crimes who are being given prison sentences)/ (Total Number of people convicted of crimes)
The second statement above ruled out that the total number of people convicted of crimes has increased. This third statement, the conclusion, talks about another potential reason for the increased prison population – of every 100 people convicted, more people are being given prison sentences, e.g., if previously 50 people were given prison sentences for every 100 convictions, now 70 people are being given prison sentences for every 100 convictions.
The argument quotes a situation (prison population increased).
The argument then rules out a couple of explanations for the situation.
The argument, thus, concludes that another potential reason must be the case.
A clear gap in the argument above is that there could be some fourth reason which explains the situation. One reason that comes to mind is longer prison sentences. If we get to know that courts are handing out longer prison sentences, we’ll have an explanation for the increase in the prison population. Thus, in such a case, we won’t be able to arrive at the conclusion.
Another gap is that we don’t know whether the government statistics are reliable. If they are not, one of the two reasons cited in the second sentence could explain the increase in the prison population.
There could be more gaps.
(A) Incorrect.
This option has NO IMPACT on the argument.
The reason this option is wrong is that it doesn’t say anything was different for the last five years compared to previous years. Without anything different, we wouldn’t have any explanation for the increased prison population.
(B) Incorrect.
This option has NO IMPACT on the argument.
The option says that because of more prison space, overcrowding in the prisons has been eliminated. The option doesn’t talk about the population in the prisons. It talks about population density in prisons.
The elimination of overcrowding due to more space in the prisons has no relevance to the argument, which is about explaining the reason for the increased prison population.
(C) Correct.
This option is in line with the first gap that I thought of.
Longer sentences could be another explanation for the increased prison population. And if we have this explanation, we don’t have a reason to believe in the conclusion, which presents a different explanation.
I believe you would have already paid attention to the fact that this option talks about a change that happened ten years ago, not five years ago.
Would that change have an impact five years later than when it came into existence?
Yes, if the change impacted prison sentences that were earlier for about five years and were revised to six or more years.
Do we know, for sure, that the change impacted these types of prisons sentences?
No.
However, we don’t need surety. We need an indication. Since the option talks about crimes for which a prison sentence had been mandatory, we have a reason to believe that we’re talking about multi-year prison sentences.
Thus, this option casts doubt on the conclusion by offering a different explanation.
(D) Incorrect.
This option has NO IMPACT on the argument.
Like the variation A1 we created, this option gives us a reason why the prison population should have decreased in the last five years. (Why? Because if there are fewer parole violations, there will be fewer parole revocations. If there are fewer parole revocations, there will be fewer people readmitted to the prisons. In such a case, the prison population should decrease)
However, we know that the prison population has increased. We’re looking for an explanation for the increase.
An option indicating that the population has not even increased is irrelevant to us.
Some believe this option weakens the argument since it doubts whether the prison population has increased. However, this reasoning is flawed. The argument is concerned with a potential explanation for an event. The argument cannot be challenged by saying that perhaps the event did not occur.
(E) Incorrect.
This option has NO IMPACT on the argument.
The option compares, across two time periods, the number of people who feel that crime is on the increase. This number is much greater now than it was five years ago.
Does this indicate that there is more crime now than five years ago?
To some extent, it does.
Can an increase in crime explain the increased prison population?
Yes, if increased crime leads to more criminal cases brought to trial. However, the argument has already said that there has been no increase in the number of criminal cases brought to trial.
Thus, this option has no impact on the argument.
Question A company’s two divisions performed with remarkable consistency over the past three years: in each of those years, the pharmaceuticals division has accounted for
Question Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted. This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers,
Question Veterinarians generally derive some of their income from selling several manufacturers’ lines of pet-care products. Knowing that pet owners rarely throw away mail from
Learn GMAT the right way – through common sense and logic. There’s no shortcut to a well-deserved success!
© 2021 All rights Reserved.