Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.2K All Categories
- 27.9K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 13 November 2024 LSAT
- 11 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 3 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 630 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
PTF97.S3.Q18 - Murder Prevention vs. Population...
riaell007
Core Member
I understand that any choice proving that the murder rate would've been higher is correct, but I'm not understanding the connection between healthcare and assault victims. How is that relevant and what does it imply?
Comments
The citizen's argument is centered around the rate of violent crimes. The city official is trying to placate the severity of problem by showing that the absolute number of murder victims is declining. The city official is assuming that the declining murder rate reflects the rate of violent crimes. E (the correct answer) is saying that just because less people are being murdered doesn't mean less people are victims are violent crimes. Improved healthcare would equally explain the decrease in murder victims since victims have a higher chance of surviving an assault.
E is implying that the number of murder victims do not accurately reflect the number of violent crimes occurring.