Directions: Read the passage/argument and answer the question that follows it.

Ever since the liquor sale and use laws have been liberalized, enabling easy sales and consumption by the city people, the crime rate in Dalmatian has significantly come down from 24 crimes per thousand per year to 14 crimes per 1000 per year. The city council surmises that this is entirely due to the liberal liquor laws and therefore, plans to do away with other liquor restrictions also, so as to achieve its goal of a crime-free city in the next five years.

Which of the following could be a possible FLAW in the reasoning employed above?

The paragraph talks of a negative correlation between liquor consumption and crime rate, which to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt to come to a firm conclusion. In this context, option (1) is a tricky answer as it talks of a shift in the definition of crime. It could have been a possible correct answer but for this expression, which could mean a more liberal or tighter definition. Now, if the new definition is tighter, it will result in fewer reported crimes while if the definition has been liberalized, it will result in more reported crimes. Hence, it is not possible to conclude anything with certainty in this case. Option (5) works on the basis of modeling, which is a poor way of reasoning. Hence, ruled out. Option (3) tries to trick the reader into believing that if serious crimes are not factored into the overall crime rate, it renders the entire idea useless. Please note carefully, the passage does not talk of the serious crime rate. Thus the option can be ruled out. So is true of option (2) which alludes to villages, which are hardly a topic of concern for we are talking about the city only. Hence, it is irrelevant as an answer choice. There could have been many possible reasons for the observed fall in crime rate. When several possibilities exist to account for an observed phenomenon, we need to rule out all others before we can zero in on a particular causal factor. The crime rate could have fallen due to more vigilance by people, better police efficiency or anything else. Simply because we happened to witness two things simultaneously does not necessarily mean that one is causing the other. Hence, choice (4) happens to the best one.