In the years 1971 to 1980, the population of the state prison system was on average about 82 percent of maximum occupancy. During those years, the average number of prisoners entering the system each year was equivalent to 9.1 percent of maximum occupancy. From the years 1981 to 1984, the average number of prisoners entering the system each year fell to 7.3 percent of maximum occupancy, yet the population of the state prison system rose to almost 89 percent of maximum occupancy.
Which of the following, if true, helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?
(A) The average sentence of a prisoner in the state system increased from 1981 to 1984.
(B) Beginning in 1981, many of those entering the state prison system had been transferred from prisons in other states.
(C) Between 1981 and 1984, the percentage of prisoners incarcerated for violent crimes increased by 26 percent.
(D) In 1981, a legislative fact-finding committee proposed a revision of the state's parole and work release programs.
(E) Between 1971 and 1984, the proportion of active criminals actually caught and incarcerated in the state prison system has steadily increased.
-------
Any opinions??
IMO: Option A
Logic:
1971-80, jails filled to 82%, convicts that came in 9.1%
1981-84, jails filled to 89%, although convicts that came in was just 7.3%
Conclusion: Of the number of convicts that came in between 81-84, more stayed in the jails or were retained, than before.
A - If the sentence increased, then there is more retention of prisoners, clearly explains the occupancy increase.
B - "Entering the state prison system" does not mean "they ended up in these jails". They were entered into the system, and could be awaiting the result, or where they could be allocated. 4 year period is not much when it comes to convicts and their sentences, to await a result.
C - Violent crimes mean long and detailed proceedings. Remember, it takes years some times to decide if guilty or not. During all that time, these convicts need to be retained in local prisons. Inbound is less, but there is no evident outbound. Therefore retention could have increased. But not having data about outbound convicts, does not help to solve discrepancy.
D - Does not help in any stance.
E - Proportion of convicts "caught" vs ones "still roaming the streets" does not clearly indicate why more have to be retained in these prisons. This proportion does NOT mean more got withheld. This option does not give that data.
IMO: B and E are very close contenders, but "State prison
System..." and "
Proportion of active..." are the key factors to be considered here.
Very nice one realtachyon !