GMAT CR Practice & Strategy |Weaken The Argument Solution | GMAT Critical Reasoning Tips | Q9

In this GMAT Verbal Practice Question, we discuss the answer and approach to a 'weaken the argument' CR question. This question will help with your GMAT online preparation for critical reasoning because it is one of the most commonly tested question types in CR. Learning to correctly solve this GMAT CR question type is crucial to your GMAT prep and to a 700+ GMAT score.
========= Useful GMAT Prep Links ========
Learn from GMAT 99%ile tutors - 2 way Interactive Classes - GMAT Focus Edition
gmat.wizako.co...
Curated GMAT Focus Edition Online Course from GMAT 780 & GMAT Q51 tutors
gmat.wizako.co...
Download FREE CR Starter Guide: wzko.in/CR-starter
=====================
Question:
Terrorist attacks invariably lead to tremendous losses in life, property, and morale of a country. The effects of a terrorist attack are not just immediate and can have long-lasting, trickle-down effects as well. The fear, for example, takes a long time to die down. However, some of these repercussions can be beneficial to the country. Take for instance, the recent terrorist attack on our capital city. In the weeks following the attack, the crime rate in the city came down significantly from what it was just before the attack. This must primarily be due to the increased presence of police resources that were moved to the area and is thus an indirect effect of the attack.
Which of the following options establishes that terrorist attacks may not be beneficial, even in bringing down crime rate?
A. The capital city has always had more police resources than other cities in the country, leading to quick detection of crimes - often while the crime is still underway.
B. A number of people are frightened because of the terrorist attacks and have fled the capital city.
C. There was a recorded decrease in crime rate right after the terrorist attack in almost all cities of the country.
D. Intel shows that crime rates abnormally increased for 6 months leading to the terrorist attack, because the terrorists were committing other smaller crimes in preparation.
E. The government had initiated schemes to decrease poverty and provide better livelihood for the people just before the terrorist attack, several of which were beginning to yield results.
Chapters:
00:00 - Introduction
00:26 - Question
02:45 - Understanding The Question
04:56 - Evaluation of Option A
05:57 - Evaluation of Option B
06:35 - Evaluation of Option C
07:49 - Evaluation of Option D
09:04 - Evaluation of Option E
Subscribe for more GMAT Verbal and Quant content, GMAT practice questions, GMAT Study Plan updates @ / wizako
Schedule a free strategy session with our GMAT experts to ramp up your GMAT preparation: wzko.in/GmatSt...
Wizako's Live Online Classes for GMAT Quant and Verbal - Everything a Physical Classroom offers! More information @ wzko.in/live
Free GMAT verbal practice and GMAT quant practice questions @ practice-quest...
Sign up for the most comprehensive and affordable online GMAT course @ wzko.in/online
Got 10 minutes? Get going with your GMAT prep. Take the FREE 10-minute GMAT sprint tests at wzko.in/ft
Follow us on Instagram @ / wizakogmat for regular GMAT updates!!
#CriticalReasoning #GMATCR #GMATCriticalReasoning #GMAT #GMATVerbalPractice #GMATVerbal #MBA #GMATPreparation #wizako

[@Wizako]

Hi everyone, We have added a free CR Starter Guide for you to download. Use the link here or you can also find it in the description box.
Download FREE CR Starter Guide: wzko.in/CR-starter

[@abhishekawasthi4082]

I think C is the correct answer because if there is a recorded decrease in crime in all cities in the country after an attack in one city, then it proves that the decrease was not due to the added security in one city due to the terrorist attack and must be due to some other reason. Answer D says that there is an increase for 6 months prior but the question does not speak about the 6 month or yearly average specifically.

[@Wizako]

The problem with C is that, it may not be because of the increased security, but it could still be because of the terrorist attacks. Ultimately, the causal relationship that the argument wants us to weaken, if you read the stem, is between terrorist attacks and crime rate.
The previous time period is referred to in the argument because it says "In the weeks following the attack, the crime rate in the city came down significantly from what it was just before the attack" but if the crime rate just before the attack was abnormally high thanks to smaller acts of crime by the terrorists, even after the resultant decrease, we are not better off.
Hope that helps.

[@sonnywitha]

👍🏻

[@Wizako]

🙌

[@sonnywitha]

👍🏻

[@Wizako]

🙌😎