The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents) in Meadowbrook is 60 percent higher now than it was four years ago. The corresponding increase for Parkdale is only 10 percent. These figures support the conclusion that residents of Meadowbrook are more likely to become victims of violent crime than are residents of Parkdale.
The argument above is flawed because it fails to take into account
The violent crime rate (number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents) in Meadowbrook is 60 percent higher now than it was four years ago. The corresponding increase for Parkdale is only 10 percent. These figures support the conclusion that residents of Meadowbrook are more likely to become victims of violent crime than are residents of Parkdale.
The argument above is flawed because it fails to take into account
A. changes in the population density of both Parkdale and Meadowbrook over the past four years
B. how the rate of population growth in Meadowbrook over the past four years compares to the corresponding rate for Parkdale
C. the ratio of violent to nonviolent crimes committed during the past four years in Meadowbrook and Parkdale D. the violent crime rates in Meadowbrook and Parkdale four years ago
E. how Meadowbrook's expenditures for crime prevention over the past four years compare to Parkdale's expenditures
我想说最后的这句话These figures support the conclusion that residents of Meadowbrook are more likely to become victims of violent crime than are residents of Parkdale.的意思是说居民是否更加容易成为受害者也就是说在M地和在P地的犯罪人的多少,如果罪犯多了,那么居民就更容易受害。我的理解是这样的,虽然M地犯罪率上升的多但是如果M地的人口增长的少,那么罪犯人数=总人口*犯罪率,也不会增长。所以进行了削弱。
我明白了~你的意思是说最后一句的结论These figures support the conclusion that residents of Meadowbrook are more likely to become victims of violent crime than are residents of Parkdale.比较的受害可能性也是一个比率问题,所以这部分也是要按照比率折算的~