PTF97 S3 Q18 - Murder Prevention vs. Population

T.A. Ausaf

So I got this question wrong under timed conditions (chose D), but then in blind review had an inkling that answer choice (E) was correct, even though I still couldn't completely rule out (D). Here was my blind review explanation:

(D) If the number of cops had increased, this at least seems like it would mitigate the reasoning used by the city official, because there were sufficient number of cops to deal with the population increases (according to experts). So what the citizen said was more substantiated, by this logic. I think so at least?
(E) So this is suggesting that the healthcare has improved a bunch, and the murder rate would have gone up even more drastically than the small pop increases, taking away the assumption that city official had made that the murder rate increased incrementally/steadily with population. I think this is the strongest counter to the city officials argument because it exposes the assumption/argument more, but I don't know why (D) is incorrect either, entirely.

Maybe (D) because more cops are not necessarily more equipped to deter violent crime, and what the city official says still stands, that the increase in pop is still a more relevant factor that the citizen is not considering. Maybe they weren't doing anything to deter violent crime before, and they are still not, and therefore what the citizen is saying is still incorrect, and what the city official is saying is still reasonable?

Please help me resolve/reconcile/explain why (D) is wrong and (E) is right, the right way!

Thanks!

McBeck418

I don’t think it matters what the citizen has to say.The question stem asks us to weaken the council member’s argument. We don’t have to strengthen the other argument. We only care about the citizen to the extent that he provides context for the council member’s point.

The council member suggest that because there are fewer victims per 100 people there is a reason to believe that law enforcement is not less capable of handling violent crime. But the number of victims has nothing to do with the amount of crime or whether the cops can handle it.

D talks to the number of cops, but that doesn’t get to the council member’s argument. It may help the citizen’s argument, but that’s not the task at hand. However many cops there are doesn’t account for the change in the number of victims. If there’s 20 crimes and 10 victims per 100 people and now there are 20 crimes and 3 victims per 100 people, the number of cops hasn’t necessarily changed that.

E talks about the difference in victims per 100 people. E says that the healthcare system is better now. The people who would have died no longer die. It’s not that that cops can handle the amount of crime any better, it’s just that people who otherwise would have died didn’t and so you can’t claim that just because there are fewer victims per 100 people now that law enforcement’s ability is not decreasing.