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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
👍🏻
🙌
👍🏻
🙌😎