LSAT 126 – Section 4 – Question 01

LSAT 126 - Section 4 - Question 01

October 2008

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:37

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
PT126 S4 Q01
+LR
+Exp
Weaken +Weak
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
99%
163
B
0%
156
C
0%
149
D
0%
147
E
0%
155
120
120
125
 +Easiest 147.084 +SubsectionMedium

Carl is clearly an incompetent detective. He has solved a smaller percentage of the cases assigned to him in the last 3 years—only 1 out of 25—than any other detective on the police force.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Carl is an incompetent detective. This is because Carl has solved a smaller percentage of his cases than any other detective in the police force.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that competence is determined by what proportion of cases any given detective has solved relative to what proportion of cases their peers have solved. She also assumes that the case Carl solved didn’t involve significantly more work or more difficult work than the cases his peers solved, which would call into the question the idea of his “incompetence.”

A
Because the police chief regards Carl as the most capable detective, she assigns him only the most difficult cases, ones that others have failed to solve.
Carl solves a smaller percentage of cases because the cases he works on are uniquely difficult. He works on these cases because he’s seen as very capable by his superior. Thus, it’s unfair and likely incorrect to call him an “incompetent detective.”
B
Before he became a detective, Carl was a neighborhood police officer and was highly respected by the residents of the neighborhood he patrolled.
We don’t care how competent Carl was as a police officer. We’re only interested in his abilities as a detective.
C
Detectives on the police force on which Carl serves are provided with extensive resources, including the use of a large computer database, to help them solve crimes.
All this says is that Carl has the same resources as other detectives. This doesn’t weaken the claim that he’s an incompetent detective.
D
Carl was previously a detective in a police department in another city, and in the 4 years he spent there, he solved only 1 out of 30 crimes.
If anything, this supports the author’s argument. Carl solved a low proportion of cases when he worked in a different town, which suggests his current circumstances aren’t the problem.
E
Many of the officers in the police department in which Carl serves were hired or promoted within the last 5 years.
Was Carl among those officers? We don’t know, and it doesn’t really matter. We care how competent he is as a detective, regardless of his tenure.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 126 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply