PTF97.S3.Q20

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 4 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24

The author is evaluating whether intensive supervision is better than routine supervision at preventing crime among parolees. Intensive supervision sounds like it should be more effective: it involves curfews and sometimes electronic monitoring, which are stricter measures than routine supervision. But the author points to a surprising statistic: the arrest rate is the same for both groups. The author takes this to mean that intensive supervision doesn't actually do a better job of preventing crime.

In other words, the author is treating the arrest rate as a reliable measure of how much crime is occurring. If the same percentage of criminals are getting arrested under both types of supervision, the author reasons, then the same amount of crime must be happening under both types. And if the same amount of crime is happening, then the stricter supervision isn't doing any better than the less strict supervision.

Is the arrest rate really a reliable measure of how much crime is occurring? Think about what intensive supervision involves: curfews, electronic monitoring, and closer oversight. If you're being watched more closely, aren't you more likely to get caught when you commit a crime? If that's the case, then the same arrest rate under intensive supervision could actually reflect fewer crimes being committed, because more of those crimes are being detected. Under routine supervision, criminals might be committing more crimes but getting away with a larger share of them.

Even if you don't have that specific criticism in mind before going to the answers, it's worth noticing more generally that the argument uses one metric (arrest rates) to draw a conclusion about something different (crime rates). Because crime rates are a new idea discussed only in the conclusion, we can reasonably anticipate that the author must be making some kind of assumption related crime rates.