Another 2 CRs

[akasans]

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 form 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?

• Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.
• Former inmates are no more likely to commit crimes than are members of the general population.
• The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.
• Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate’s subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.
• The governor’s ultimate goal actually is to gain popularity by convincing people that something effective is being done about crime.

Although most smoking-related illnesses are caused by inhaling the tar in tobacco smoke, it is addiction to nicotine that prevents most smokers from quitting. In

an effort to decrease the incidence of smoking-related illnesses, lawmakers in Sandonia plan to reduce the average quantity of nicotine per cigarette by half over the next five years. Unfortunately, smokers who are already addicted to nicotine tend to react to such reductions by smoking correspondingly more cigarettes.



The information above most strongly supports which of the following predictions about the effects of implementing the Sandonian government’s plan?

• The average quantity of tar inhaled by Sandonian smokers who are currently addicted to nicotine will probably not decrease during the next five years.
• Sandonian smokers who are not already addicted to nicotine will probably also begin to smoke more cigarettes during the next five years than they had previously.
• The annual number of Sandonian smokers developing smoking-related illnesses will probably decrease during the next five years.
• The proportion of Sandonians attempting to quit smoking who succeed in that attempt will probably decrease during the next five years.
• The number of Sandonians who quit smoking during the next five years will probably exceed the number who quit during the last five years.

[transyt7]

Will pick C and A...

[andy_deb]

I go with C & A.

2nd one, A is an option alright.
But, my gut feeling was that tar intake will actually go up. Is my gut feeling wrong for some reason ???
Had there been such an option, F which one would we go for ?!? A or F?

[akasans]

The OA for the first one is A. Can anyone explain why A is the right answer for the first one?

[gmat168]

Hmm, the first one seemed so clearly to be C. But it seems so clear now:

The goal of the governor is to DETER CRIME, not REPEAT crimes after people have been released from prison. It's kinda like saying, the goal of management of the hotel is to prevent people from book reservations because they don't give a mint on the pillow anymore. It probably wouldn't deter anyone who would've booked that hotel anyway.

Except, the hotel in this case...is prison.

[Psyzygy]

For the first one, I think the correct answer has got to be C.
THe conclusion in this case is that denying inmates access to college level courses runs counter to the governors plans to reduce crime, since inmates who have taken these courses commit far fewer crimes overall. Therefore, choice C has to be assumed for this argument to hold.

The prospect of not being able to take said courses in prison may not deter criminals from committing crimes they would otherwise have committed --> what does this have to do with the argument that denying access to these course will not aid the governor's plan?

I'm really not sure about the second. I picked E. Can someone help me with this?

[FZanjani]

Q1- (A) and Q2 (A)
(A) is a clear counter premise ; whereas (C) is a rationalisation of a premise.

[Psyzygy]

Q1- (A) and Q2 (A)
(A) is a clear counter premise ; whereas (C) is a rationalisation of a premise.

I'm really not sure what that means Excuse me if I sound stupid but I can't figure this one out.

[FZanjani]

I'm really not sure what that means Excuse me if I sound stupid but I can't figure this one out.

sorry didnt mean to confuse you , what i was trying to say was that if (A) was negated it will nullify the argument although (C) looks good but then it is strecthing the argument beyond what's is given -"The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released" well may be they are or may be they are not...all we are doing here is assuming by rationalising one of the choices ?

And also if you negate (C) the argument still stands.

hope this explains.

[Psyzygy]

sorry didnt mean to confuse you , what i was trying to say was that if (A) was negated it will nullify the argument although (C) looks good but then it is strecthing the argument beyond what's is given -"The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released" well may be they are or may be they are not...all we are doing here is assuming by rationalising one of the choices ?

And also if you negate (C) the argument still stands.

hope this explains.

thank you fzanjani.