[wild007love]

Originally Posted by toxic

suppose police force isn't laid off then it doesn't make sure that crime rate will decrease.despite of all efforts of police force if court ramains lenient to criminals,they can now do almost anything without fear of a long prison term.which is surelly a vain attempt.
what u ppl say????i m still not clear about it.

see we have to choose a statement which IF TRUE most weakens the argument
so even if we assume for a moment that judges are being lenient ......this means since the judges are being lenient the criminals are no more afraid of the courts as they will be easily let off by the judges............NOW to weaken this argument if we believe statement 3 to be true .....which says since 35% of the police force which used to take care of the law & order in the state has been laid off .......i.e number of policemen taking care of law & order in the state are reduced by 35% .....thus decrease in number of watchdog(policemen) of law & order is directly related to increase in crime rate ....

[Paagalguy_533]

Originally Posted by wild007love

see we have to choose a statement which IF TRUE most weakens the argument
so even if we assume for a moment that judges are being lenient ......this means since the judges are being lenient the criminals are no more afraid of the courts as they will be easily let off by the judges............NOW to weaken this argument if we believe statement 3 to be true .....which says since 35% of the police force which used to take care of the law & order in the state has been laid off .......i.e number of policemen taking care of law & order in the state are reduced by 35% .....thus decrease in number of watchdog(policemen) of law & order is directly related to increase in crime rate ....

PUYs,
It is confusing me a lot.
At first read I thought answer to be 3.
But later I got convinced with the reply of toxic.


It will be great if the CAT crackers throw some light on how to master these kinds of confusion questions.

[tansin13]

The answer should be 4.

How do you know that if the policemen had not been layed-off, the criminals would have been caught?

[wild007love]

Originally Posted by tansin13

The answer has to be 4.

How do you know that if the policemen had not been layed-off, the criminals would have been caught?

can u explain why option 4
why 4 is a better choice than 3 ? ..........

[shashank3012]

Originally Posted by shashank3012

well,this might help

Critical thinking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

these type consist of a passage,followed by a question/s pertaining to something not given in the passage.

posting one here as an example.

The rate of violent crime in this state is up 30 percent from last year. The fault lies entirely in our court system: Recently our judges' sentences have been so lenient that criminals can now do almost anything without fear of a long prison term. The argument above would be weakened if it were true that

1. 85 percent of the other states in the nation have lower crime rates than does this state.
2. white collar crime in this state has also increased by over 25 percent in the last year.
3. 35 percent of the police in this state have been laid off in the last year due to budget cuts.
4. polls show that 65 percent of the population in this state oppose capital punishment.
5. the state has hired 25 new judges in the last year to compensate for deaths and retirements

sorry for the late response puys

ok,the OA was option (3)

reason was not given,but this is what,i think:

given:
crime rate is higher this year
fault lies in court=>argument
judges' sentences are lenient=>reason for argument.

we have to see,why fault does not lie within the court.

1=>no contribution
2=>hmmm...white collar crimes have increased.but,they can be punished by the court=>it is a supportive argument.
3=>decreased police=>less offenders caught=>more crimes=>court is not responsible
4=>people oppose capital punishment=>but court can still do something about it.weak argument.
5=>judges have increased,but still no result=>supportive argument.

so,only option(3) fits the bill.

[rahulshaitan]

Originally Posted by shashank3012

well,this might help

Critical thinking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

these type consist of a passage,followed by a question/s pertaining to something not given in the passage.

posting one here as an example.

The rate of violent crime in this state is up 30 percent from last year. The fault lies entirely in our court system: Recently our judges' sentences have been so lenient that criminals can now do almost anything without fear of a long prison term. The argument above would be weakened if it were true that

1. 85 percent of the other states in the nation have lower crime rates than does this state.
2. white collar crime in this state has also increased by over 25 percent in the last year.
3. 35 percent of the police in this state have been laid off in the last year due to budget cuts.
4. polls show that 65 percent of the population in this state oppose capital punishment.
5. the state has hired 25 new judges in the last year to compensate for deaths and retirements

my take
option 3 because police is generally responsible for catching the criminals and now, as 65% of the police was laid off so the police criminal ratio is decreased due to which all criminals might be coming to crime so the role of jugdes here is weaked. and , therefore the answer is option3


are you convinced?

[Paagalguy_533]

Originally Posted by shashank3012

sorry for the late response puys

ok,the OA was option (3)

reason was not given,but this is what,i think:

given:
crime rate is higher this year
fault lies in court=>argument
judges' sentences are lenient=>reason for argument.

we have to see,why fault does not lie within the court.

1=>no contribution
2=>hmmm...white collar crimes have increased.but,they can be punished by the court=>it is a supportive argument.
3=>decreased police=>less offenders caught=>more crimes=>court is not responsible
4=>people oppose capital punishment=>but court can still do something about it.weak argument.
5=>judges have increased,but still no result=>supportive argument.

so,only option(3) fits the bill.

This Explanation is more convincing.
thanks Man..

[Paagalguy_533]

Originally Posted by rahulshaitan

my take
option 3 because police is generally responsible for catching the criminals and now, as 65% of the police was laid off so the police criminal ratio is decreased due to which all criminals might be coming to crime so the role of jugdes here is weaked. and , therefore the answer is option3


are you convinced?

Yeah rahulshaitan.
Got convinced. Cleared the confusion.

[wild007love]

GETTING MARRIED (from George Summers)

Four men --Aaron , Barry , Colin , & David ---& four women---Marie , Norma , Olive & Pearl---attended a wedding.

1)--One of the four men married one of the four women.

2)--If Aaron did not get married & if Marie did not get married , then Olive got married.

3)--If Aaron did not get married & if Norma did not get married , then Barry got married.

4)--If Barry did not get married & if Olive did not get married , then Colin got married.

5)--If Colin did not get married & if Norma did not get married , then Marie got married.

Who got married?

[apsceg]

Originally Posted by wild007love

GETTING MARRIED (from George Summers)

Four men --Aaron , Barry , Colin , & David ---& four women---Marie , Norma , Olive & Pearl---attended a wedding.

1)--One of the four men married one of the four women.

2)--If Aaron did not get married & if Marie did not get married , then Olive got married.

3)--If Aaron did not get married & if Norma did not get married , then Barry got married.

4)--If Barry did not get married & if Olive did not get married , then Colin got married.

5)--If Colin did not get married & if Norma did not get married , then Marie got married.

Who got married?

barry and marie