Q4 - Statistical records of crime rates

[daniel]

Can someone help me understand why (C) is incorrect?

[Daniella.owusu]

I think it is wrong because it is not so much of a generalization as it is just a conclusion supported by the evidence that is provided. It is also not assuming this conclusion to be true. The conclusion clearly states, "Statistical records of crime rates probably reflect as much about the motives and methods... So it isn't guaranteed and it isn't true. It says probably and then provides reasons for why this is probably the case.

B) is therefore the correct answer because the premise is meant to show both sides of a coin. Police do it for one reason and then you have politicians doing it for a different reason, which is what the conclusion is getting at

[christine.defenbaugh]

Great question daniel!

With argument structure questions, it's critical to break out the core in the same way you do for assumption family questions. The only major difference is that this time you're not going to concern yourself with the gap!

So let's start with a distilled core:

PREMISE
Police may underreport/overreport crime rates for their own reasons.
Politicians may magnify/minimize crime rates for their own purposes.
Newspapers may sensationalize crime for their own purposes.
CONCLUSION
Crime rates probably often reflect just as much about the record keepers as they do about crime itself.

So the premises are a handful of specific potential examples, and the conclusion is a big blanket statement (or generalization). Because the argument uses the specific examples to support the broader conclusion, it matches (B).

(C) is interesting, as the word "generalization" is quite tempting. However, (C) suggests an argument that uses a generalization as the premise, and then derives specific implications (or conclusions) from that premise. In the stimulus, the generalization was the conclusion itself. (C) essentially flips the logical relationship between the specific examples and the broad generalization.

If you misidentified the conclusion in this argument, and thought the author used the generalization in the first sentence to support the specific examples as a conclusion, (C) would look really great. This highlights how critical it is to properly identify the conclusion immediately!

The Argument Doesn't Do That (Either)
(A) The author never cites any evidence against the conclusion
(D) No general solution is proposed
(E) There is no evidence that appears to contradict the conclusion.


On argument structure questions, don't neglect to break out the core of the argument! The fact that it's not an assumption family question simply means you don't need to worry about the gap between the premise and the conclusion. You still need to correctly identify the core though!

Please let me know if this completely answers your question!

[valmir_merkaj]

It could have been viewed as this, and answer C would have been correct:

Premise

Crime rates probably often reflect just as much about the record keepers as they do about crime itself.

Conclusions

Police may underreport/overreport crime rates for their own reasons.
Politicians may magnify/minimize crime rates for their own purposes

However, the last sentence changes the whole structure: "Newspapers often sensationalise crime statistics to increase readership."

This is a premise and not an implication as C states. And since this is a premise the two other statements could be seen as premises as well. The conclusion, "crime rates probably often....." follows them and B becomes right.