Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardCourse of Action

Statement: An independent audit has revealed that the state police's newly implemented AI-driven predictive patrolling system has developed a severe algorithmic feedback loop. Consequently, the system is disproportionately deploying 80% of available patrol units to low-income neighborhoods for minor infractions, while major commercial districts are simultaneously experiencing a 30% reduction in critical police surveillance, directly leading to a rapid spike in organized financial crime.

Which of the following courses of action logically follows?

Courses of Action:
I. The State Police Department should immediately decommission the AI system permanently, erase all existing historical crime databases to prevent future algorithmic bias, and revert entirely to randomized manual patrolling.
II. The Police Department should immediately suspend the AI system's deployment exclusively in the low-income neighborhoods to halt the disproportionate targeting, while maintaining its active operation in the commercial districts to combat the organized crime spike.

  1. A
    Only Course of Action I follows
  2. B
    Only Course of Action II follows
  3. C
    Both Course of Action I and II follow
  4. Neither Course of Action I nor II followsAnswer

Answer

Neither Course of Action I nor II follows.
Neither course of action is valid. The first action proposes destroying historical crime databases, which is an extreme, disproportionate, and legally problematic administrative measure. The second action suggests maintaining the AI system in commercial districts to combat crime; however, the statement explicitly establishes that the AI system is the exact cause of the critical surveillance reduction in those very districts. Therefore, keeping it active there would logically worsen, not solve, the problem.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Evaluate Course of Action I for administrative feasibility and proportionality.
Course of Action I is invalid.
While halting a flawed system is reasonable, permanently decommissioning it without attempting recalibration, and specifically erasing official historical crime databases, represents an illegal destruction of public records and an extreme administrative overreach.
2
Evaluate Course of Action II against the explicit facts established in the statement.
Course of Action II is invalid.
The statement explicitly dictates that the AI system is the root cause of the 30% reduction in surveillance in commercial districts. Therefore, maintaining the system's active operation in those districts would perpetuate the lack of surveillance, directly failing to combat the organized crime spike.
3
Determine the final conclusion based on the evaluations.
Neither action is a logically sound or practically viable solution to the problem presented.
Both actions introduce severe new problems or directly contradict the factual parameters of the crisis.

Key Concept

Evaluating administrative feasibility, proportionality, and logical alignment with explicit problem constraints.
Rate this question

Topics

Course of Action

More questions from this topic