LSAT 120 – Section 3 – Question 24

LSAT 120 - Section 3 - Question 24

October 2005

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:25

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
PT120 S3 Q24
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
13%
161
B
16%
159
C
2%
157
D
13%
160
E
56%
165
151
161
171
 +Hardest 146.629 +SubsectionMedium

Police commissioner: Last year our city experienced a 15 percent decrease in the rate of violent crime. At the beginning of that year a new mandatory sentencing law was enacted, which requires that all violent criminals serve time in prison. Since no other major policy changes were made last year, the drop in the crime rate must have been due to the new mandatory sentencing law.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that last year’s 15 percent decrease in the rate of violent crime was caused by the new mandatory sentencing law. This is because the law was passed at the beginning of last year, and no other major policy changes were made last year.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there was no alternate cause of the decreased crime rate. (Even though there were no other major policy changes last year, the crime rate could have decreased for some other reason that wasn’t a policy change, or from a policy change enacted before last year.)

A
Studies of many other cities have shown a correlation between improving economic conditions and decreased crime rates.
We have no idea whether the author’s city had improved economic conditions. So, (A) doesn’t act as an alternate explanation for the decreased violent crime rate.
B
Prior to the enactment of the mandatory sentencing law, judges in the city had for many years already imposed unusually harsh penalties for some crimes.
The mandatory sentencing law required prison time for all violent criminals. We have no idea whether the “unusually harsh penalties for some crimes” involved prison time for violent crimes.
C
Last year, the city’s overall crime rate decreased by only 5 percent.
We know the violent crime rate decreased by 15 percent, which is higher than 5 percent. (C) helps support the theory that the decreased crime rate can’t be explained by a general decrease in crime.
D
At the beginning of last year, the police department’s definition of “violent crime” was broadened to include 2 crimes not previously classified as “violent.”
This strengthens the argument, because broadening the definition of “violent crime” would lead us to expect an increase in violent crime. This helps eliminate the explanation that the decreased violent crime rate was caused by a narrowing of the definition of violent crime.
E
The city enacted a policy 2 years ago requiring that 100 new police officers be hired in each of the 3 subsequent years.
This provides a potential alternate explanation for the decreased violent crime. (E) describes a policy change that was made prior to last year, but continued to have effects into last year. It’s reasonable to think increased numbers of police officers could reduce violent crime.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 120 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply