Question:

Mayor: Four years ago when we reorganized the city police department in order to save money, critics claimed that the reorganization would make the police less responsive to citizens and would thus lead to more crime. The police have compiled theft statistics from the years following the reorganization that show that the critics were wrong. There was an overall decrease in reports of thefts of all kinds, including small thefts.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously challenges the mayor's argument?

Show Hint

In "challenge the argument" questions, first identify the conclusion and the evidence. Then, look for the unstated assumption that links them. The best answer will almost always attack this assumption. Here, the assumption is that `reported crime = actual crime`.
Updated On: Oct 1, 2025
  • When city police are perceived as unresponsive, victims of theft are less likely to report thefts to the police.
  • The mayor's critics generally agree that police statistics concerning crime reports provide the most reliable available data on crime rates.
  • In other cities where police departments have been similarly reorganized, the numbers of reported thefts have generally risen following reorganization.
  • The mayor's reorganization of the police department failed to save as much money as it was intended to save.
  • During the four years immediately preceding the reorganization, reports of all types of theft had been rising steadily in comparison to reports of other crimes.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question asks us to find a statement that weakens the mayor's argument. The mayor's argument is that because the number of reported thefts decreased, the critics' claim that crime would increase was wrong. The core of the argument is the assumption that a decrease in reported crime means a decrease in actual crime. A strong challenge will attack this assumption.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Let's break down the mayor's logic:
- Conclusion: The critics were wrong; crime did not increase.
- Evidence: Statistics show a decrease in reports of theft.
- Assumption: The number of reported thefts accurately reflects the actual number of thefts.
Now let's analyze the options:
- (A) This statement directly attacks the mayor's central assumption. The critics claimed the police would become "less responsive." If being less responsive causes victims to stop reporting crimes, then the number of reported thefts could go down even if the number of actual thefts goes up or stays the same. This provides an alternative explanation for the mayor's data that actually supports the critics' original claim. It is a very strong challenge.
- (B) This statement strengthens the mayor's argument by confirming that his data source (police statistics) is reliable. This is the opposite of what we're looking for.
- (C) This provides an analogy to other cities. While it suggests the mayor's city is an exception, it doesn't explain why the mayor's reasoning for his own city might be flawed. It weakens the argument slightly but is less direct than (A).
- (D) This information is irrelevant. The mayor's argument is about crime rates, not about the financial success of the reorganization.
- (E) This provides historical context about a rising trend before the change. While a decrease after a period of increase is interesting, it doesn't challenge the validity of the decrease itself. It doesn't provide a reason to doubt the connection between the reported numbers and the actual crime rate.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Option (A) is the best answer because it directly challenges the connection between the mayor's evidence (fewer reports) and his conclusion (less crime) by providing a plausible alternative explanation.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Logical Reasoning

View More Questions

Questions Asked in GRE exam

View More Questions