Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the claim of the city officials that the program has led to an increase in crime?

(A) The two subway stations had been chosen on the basis subway stations was higher than that of other high-crime subway stations not equipped with closed-circuit-television.

(B) The rate of increase in crimes reported for two subway stations was higher than that of other high-crime subway stations not equipped with closed-circuit television.

(C) The percentage of all crimes committed at the two subway stations that were reported rose as a result of increased instances of observations of crime on the closed-circuit televisions.

(D) The year in which the experiment was conducted was a year in which the total number of crimes reported in the city fell.

The correct answer is C.

怎么觉得C 那么像support? help, help...

文章说装了闭路电视来降低犯罪，1年后就不再进行这样的试验了

原因：报告的案件增多了。

逻辑链是：因为报告的案件多了，所以这个试验没有达到其目的。

C说：因为你看见的多了，所以案件增加了。即原先报告的少是因为你看见的少。

现在装了电视探头，你见的多了，所以案件多了。即【案件多了】本身是另有原因

而已，并非是试验本身没有达到目的。

我觉得他的结论是说“the program has led to an increase in crime”，

evidence 是“the fact that following the installation, both stations

showed increases in the number of crimes reported.”。也就是说逻辑链是：

因为装了这个电视，所以导致犯罪率上升，所以不再继续这种做法。这道题感觉有

点像媒体报道飞机事故那一题...

 C要说的就是，犯罪事件本来就是那些，之前没有装闭路电视的时候，知道的少

现在装了闭路电视看到了多了而已。并非是program本身使其数量增加的。即并非program没有达到降低犯罪的目的，只是看到了更多原先存在之前未被观察到的而已。

program本身没有使得犯罪数量增加。那么claim of the city officials that the program has led to an increase in crime就被weaken