#19 - Criminologist: According to a countrywide tabulation

[bobersenbob]

To make my previous question clear, I just don't get HOW a greater proportion of reporting has any affect on the impression of total crimes.

If it does, shouldn't a greater number of reports INCREASE the impression of crimes? If it does not have an affect, then this fundamentally changes how I have approached paradox questions (an answer that satisfies BOTH paradoxical statements, not just one) .

[Robert Carroll]

bobersenbob,

There's no particular reason to think that people's impression about the total number of crimes would be affected by how many are reported to police departments. Those reports might make the police more aware of crimes, but people's own awareness of crimes can easily come from other sources . In fact, those reporting crimes are at least already aware of those crimes before the police are, since the police are learning about those crimes from the reports. So, imagine that actual crimes are going down but reports are more readily made. Citizens would perceive crimes as going down in number, because they are. Police would perceive that crimes are increasing per 100,000 people, because the police are hearing about crimes at a higher rate. Thus, answer choice (E) provides the missing information that explains how these two perceptions can be reconciled - crimes aren't happening more often, and are actually happening less often, but the percentage reported to police has gone up.

Robert Carroll

[Catallus]

I'm very confused by (C), even after reading through prior explanations here. Doesn't it just outright deny a premise of the argument? The stimulus says that the reported incidence of crime, in proportion to the population, has risen over the past 20 years. (C) says that the incidence of crime "has fallen in proportion to the country's growing population." I can't see how that squares with the stimulus. That's what led me to pick (E), the correct answer, but I feel like I might be missing something as to why (C) should be eliminated, since answer choices don't usually directly deny a premise like (C) seems, to me, to be doing. Maybe the discrepancy between reported crime rates and actual crime rates offers a bit of leniency that (C) exploits? But then, even assuming that the reported rise in crime rates does not accurately map onto the actual rates of crime, (C) wouldn't explain why this is the case, and perhaps that's why it's not correct.

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Catallus!

Answer choice C states that the total annual number of crimes has risen over the past 20 years, but has fallen in proportion to the country's growing population. The stimulus, however, states that the incidence of crime being measured is proportional, and the survey has found that the incidence of crime has risen proportionally. That automatically precludes C from being the correct answer, as the stimulus indicates that this is not true.

I hope this helps!