LSAT 119 – Section 2 – Question 17

LSAT 119 - Section 2 - Question 17

June 2005

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:21

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT119 S2 Q17
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
3%
156
B
21%
160
C
1%
150
D
1%
146
E
75%
165
139
150
162
 +Medium 144.676 +SubsectionEasier

Legislator: The recently released crime statistics clearly show that the new laws requiring stiffer punishments for violators have reduced the crime rate. In the areas covered by those laws, the incidence of crime has decreased by one-fourth over the four years since the legislation was enacted.

Analyst: The statistics are welcome news, but they do not provide strong evidence that the new laws caused the drop in crime. Many comparable areas that lack such legislation have reported a similar drop in the crime rate during the same period.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The analyst concludes that the decrease in crime in areas covered by new, stricter punishment laws does not constitute strong evidence that those laws caused the decrease in crime. The analyst supports this conclusion with a comparison to areas that have experienced a similar decrease in crime, but without similar laws.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The analyst counters the legislator’s cause-and-effect argument by pointing out comparable cases that have shown the same “effect” but that have not experienced the proposed “cause.” This suggests that there is some alternative explanation that has given rise to the effect.

A
pointing out that the legislator has provided no evidence of the reliability of the statistics on which the legislator’s conclusion is based
The analyst doesn’t call the reliability or truth of the statistics into question, only arguing that they do not necessarily support the legislator’s conclusion.
B
arguing that the legislator has unreasonably concluded that one event has caused another without ruling out the possibility that both events are effects of a common cause
The analyst doesn’t argue that the reduction in crime and the introduction of stricter laws are caused by the same thing. The analyst instead points out that the laws simply may not be the cause of the reduction in crime.
C
objecting that the statistics on which the legislator is basing his conclusion are drawn from a time period that is too short to yield a meaningful data sample
The analyst doesn’t object to the statistics in any way and accepts the decrease in crime as real.
D
claiming that the legislator has attempted to establish a particular conclusion because doing so is in the legislator’s self-interest rather than because of any genuine concern for the truth of the matter
The analyst doesn’t address the legislator’s motivation for making the argument, only arguing against the content of the argument itself.
E
implying that the legislator has drawn a conclusion about cause and effect without considering how often the alleged effect has occurred in the absence of the alleged cause
The analyst points to cases where the same effect has occurred (a decrease in crime) but that have not been subject to the legislator’s assumed cause (the stricter laws). This is used to suggest that the cause-and-effect conclusion drawn by the legislator is unjustified.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 119 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply