In Canada in 1995, the average rate of property crime in provinces with strict firearm regulations was 520 crimes per 100,000 persons: about 40 percent higher than the average rate in the eight provinces where strict firearm regulations have never been enacted. Therefore, one way to decrease property crime is to eliminate strict firearm regulations.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

(A) The annual rate of property crime in provinces with strict firearm regulations has decreased since those regulations were implemented.

Correct

(B) In provinces with strict firearm regulations, very few individuals are charged with violating such regulations.

(C) In provinces without strict firearm regulations, many individuals have received extensive training in the use of firearms.

(D) The annual rate of violent crime is lower in provinces with strict firearm regulations than in provinces without such regulations.

(E) More than half of the individuals who live in provinces without strict firearm regulations own a firearm.

See the full step-by-step explanation

You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.

Track your performance and improve

Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.

Start for free Sign in

Explanation

Preview

Official Explanation

Official

The argument suggests that repealing strict firearm regulations would lead to a decrease in property crime. To weaken this argument, we need evidence that contradicts the implication that strict regulations are linked to higher crime rates. Option (A) states that the annual rate of property crime…

Read the full explanation

Create free account Sign in

Comments

ethanJan 26, 2025

Thank for sharing!!!

ShubhankarFeb 5, 2025

can you explain more?

KnightFeb 22, 2025

thanks a lot

SongDec 21, 2024

Thanks

What this question tests

What it tests

Whether you can identify the option that most undermines an argument's conclusion.

Common trap

Choosing an irrelevant objection or one that attacks the premise rather than the reasoning.