Clever Wordplay in CR questions.

Clever Wordplay
Many Critical Reasoning problems are tricky primarily because people gloss over
subtle differences in meaning between an idea expressed in the stimulus and a
concept provided in an answer choice. With so many details in each question and so
many questions in rapid succession, this tendency is certainly understandable, but not
forgivable—at least not once you have been exposed to this commonly used trick!
Consider two examples:

example 1. Criminals released from prison on parole have generally been put under

routine supervision. A recent program has allowed criminals to leave prison

early under intensive supervision; they must obey curfews and in some cases

they must be electronically monitored. The percentage of released criminals

arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for

routine supervision, so intensive supervision is no more effective than routine

supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

(A) The criminals under intensive supervision, but not those under routine

supervision, were required to work or attend school during their

supervision period.

(B) All of the criminals who were arrested while under routine supervision

had been in prison more than once before being paroled and put

under supervision.

(C) The proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly

higher for criminals under intensive supervision than those under

routine supervision.

(D) Of the criminals arrested while under intensive supervision, some

would not have committed crimes if they had been under routine

supervision.

(E) The number of criminals put under routine supervision was not

significantly greater than the number of criminals put under intensive

supervision.

In the  example , the clever wordplay is the important difference between

“committing a crime” and “being arrested.” Data about “being arrested” is not the same

as data about “committing a crime.” You could have been arrested 50 times and not

once have committed a crime. If 100 people were arrested in each group and then

you claim “Intensive supervision is not any better than routine supervision at keeping

people from COMMITTING crimes,” that is flawed. What if 80 of the 100 people in the

intensive group were actually committing crimes and only 20 of the 100 people in the

routine group were? That would show that indeed intensive supervision is much better

at keeping people from committing crimes. Correct answer choice C eliminates that

possibility and greatly improves the quality of the argument. With Critical Reasoning

questions, you must be on the constant lookout for subtle meaning differences,

as many questions hinge on this type of wordplay.