Here we have a statement of facts. Many people think that the "only way to remedy" the problem of crime is by having more police officers, however, statistics show that "many major cities had similar ratios of police officers to citizens, yet diverged widely in their crime rates."
The part of the sentence citing the statistics is there to question the validity of the belief of those people that the "ONLY way to remedy" the problem of crime is by increasing the number of police officers. The statistics cite examples of many major cities that have similar ratios of police officers to citizens and yet still diverge widely in crime rates; leading the reader to the thought that there may be other factors that affect the problem of crime.
(E) is correct because it clearly states why the statistics have been cited. As we see by the existence of many major cities that have divergent crime rates yet similar police to citizen ratios, it can't be just the number of police officers that is affecting the problem of crime. The statistics are placed to illuminate that the number of police officers cannot be the ONLY factor affecting crime rates.
(D) is incorrect because it is much too extreme. The statistics do not demonstrate that there is NO relation between the number of police officers and the crime rate. They merely show that the number of police officers cannot be the only factor. Just because many major cities with similar police officer to citizen ratios have divergent crime rates, doesn't mean that that the number of police officers has NO affect.
Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
cupton22September 14, 2017
Can you explain why C is incorrect. Thanks.
MehranSeptember 15, 2017
This issue with (C) is that this argument is not about factors other than the number of police officers that are more important to reducing crime rate.
The statement the author is taking issue with is, "the only way to remedy the problem of crime is by increasing the number of police officers . . . "
This is why he introduces the statistics he cites.
Notice that (E) directly addresses this, i.e. "suggest that the number of police officers is not the only influence on crime rate."
Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
jocelynadvocatesJune 19, 2018
Can someone please help identify the conclusion in this one?
ChristopherJune 21, 2018
There is no explicit conclusion. The author is weakening an established conclusion but does not complete the argument.
Cynthia-LeeAugust 10, 2018
I am still having trouble seeing why C is incorrect, can you please further elaborate the difference between C and E, thanks.
MichelleRodAugust 15, 2018
Thanks for your question @cynthia-lee
Answer choice C reads "prove that there a factors other than the number of police officers that are MORE IMPORTANT in reducing the crime rate."
The author is only showing that their are other factors influencing the crime rate. The author is making no assertions about which factors are more or less important.
Cynthia-LeeAugust 16, 2018
I got it, thanks Michelle!
hkarlApril 22, 2020
Answer E is insinuating that the number of police officers definitely has a relationship with crime rates, because it says "the number of police officers is not the ONLY influence". But, couldn't it be argued that option E is wrong because it's possible that the number of police officers doesn't actually have ANY influence on crime rates?
If the statistics showed that there was no correlation between the number of police officers and crime rates (because even cities where the ratio of police officers to civilians was the same, the crime rates were different), couldn't those statistics also prove that the number of police officers is irrelevant, not just it's not the ONLY influence on crime rate? Using the word "only" insinuates that it's a definite factor to begin with. There's no evidence in the text given that the number of police officers are a definite factor.
