Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets picked at Central Station had risen to an all-time high, the transit authority erected signs in Central Station telling riders to beware of pickpockets. In the year since the signs have been erected, though, riders have had their pockets picked at Central Station at a per-capita rate nearly double that before the signs were erected.

Which of the following, if true, helps to explain the discrepancy pointed out in the passage?

A.) Since Central Station’s major renovation, during which the signs were erected, Central Station has become much more attractive to tourists from out of town.

B.) Rising gas prices and a surging downtown job market have caused the daily number of riders at Central Station nearly to double within the past year.

C.) Riders walking past the new signs tend to rummage through their pockets or feel through their clothes to verify the presence of their possessions.

D.) The number of individuals convicted of petty theft or grand theft for picking pockets at Central Station has decreased within the past year.

E.) Most of the pickpockets’ victims were riding the subway during peak travel hours, when Central Station is especially crowded.

Hi ajit,
We can best help you if you'll tell us more about how you are struggling with this problem. Please give us more information and someone will assist you.

_________________
Jamie Nelson
ManhattanGMAT Instructor

Hi there,
the answer is clearly between a and b

However it is b in my opinion.

I think it's C

Waiting for ajit to let us know the original answer and what his/her issue is with this problem.

_________________
Jamie Nelson
ManhattanGMAT Instructor

The OA is C. I was stuck between A and B. A seems better but i dont understand why C is the ans. It assumes a lot.

Okay ajit. The first thing we should do is identify the discrepancy. What is the odd situation here? Signs were posted warning people to beware of pickpockets; however, since that happened subway riders have been pickpocketed at a per-capita rate double that before the signs were posted.

We need an answer choice that explains how both of these happenings could be true at the same time.

A) Too out of scope. Yes, there are more tourists there, but so what. That does not explain why the victim rate has risen. We don't know if tourists are more likely to be pickpocketed than residents.

B) Confusing you with absolute numbers and rates. It doesn't matter if we've doubled the number of people, because the "per-capita rate" of pickpocketing has doubled. For example, that means of every 100 subway riders, 10 people were pickpocketed, up from 5 people previously. Just adding or subtracting people doesn't matter. We will still have the same RATE of 10/100.

C) This is it. It helps explain how both things could be happening. People do see the signs but then they rummage through their pockets identifying valuables. This attracts the attention of pickpockets and the signs indirectly cause the riders to identify themselves as potential targets. Aha. This explains how this seeming discrepancy can exist.

Please let me know if this is helpful.

_________________
Jamie Nelson
ManhattanGMAT Instructor