Citizens of parktown are worried by the increased frequency of serious crimes committed by local teenagers. In response, the cit
y government has instituted a series of measures designed to keep teenagers at home in the late evening. Even if the measures succeed in keeping teenagers at home, however, they are unlikely to affect the problem that concerns citizens, since most crimes committed by local teenagers take place between 3pm and 6pm Which of the following,if true, most substantially weakens the argument ?
GPrep Q
1) Similar measures adopted in other place have failed to reduce the no of teenagers in the late evening
2) Crimes committed by teenagers in afternoon are mostly small thefts and inconsequential vandalism
3) teenagers are much less likely to commit serious crimes when they are at home than when they are not at home
4) Any decrease in the need for police patrols in late evening would not mean that there could be more intensive patrolling in the afternoon
5) The schools in parktown have introduced a number of after school programs that will be available to teenagers until 6pm on weekday afternoons
If the argument that the children are mostly doing small thefts and inconsequential vandalism is correct it is the one with the most weakness since small thefts and small vandalism is still against the law and it should be punished. It is also bad for citizens and teenagers because the small thefts and vandalism can became bigger and bigger trough the time.
This would be B. negotiating with foreign nations. The other three have the would community in them or something similar. B is something the federal government would deal with.
