LSAT 109 – Section 3 – Question 14

LSAT 109 - Section 3 - Question 14

December 2000

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:00

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
PT109 S3 Q14
+LR
Argument part +AP
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Math +Math
A
2%
162
B
0%
150
C
8%
162
D
18%
163
E
71%
168
141
154
168
 +Harder 148.18 +SubsectionMedium

Many people think that the only way to remedy the problem of crime is by increasing the number of police officers, but recent statistics show that many major cities had similar ratios of police officers to citizens, yet diverged widely in their crime rates.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author seems to disagree with people who think that increasing police numbers is the only way to reduce crime. There’s no outright statement of disagreement, but the rest of the argument proceeds as though disputing those people’s view. Specifically, the author cites statistical evidence: various cities with similar police-to-population ratios have very different crime rates. This leads to the implied conclusion that boosting police numbers isn’t the only way to lower crime rates.

Identify Argument Part
The statistics cited in the argument are support (i.e. a premise) for the implicit conclusion that it is not the case that increasing police numbers is the only way to solve crime.

A
establish that the number of police officers does not need to be increased
Like (B), the author never takes a stance on whether or not police numbers need to be increased. The argument doesn’t do this, and nor does any part of it.
B
illustrate the need for increasing the number of police officers in major cities
Like (A), the author never offers a suggestion on whether police numbers should or shouldn’t be increased, in major cities or anywhere else. This isn’t in the argument at all.
C
prove that there are factors other than the number of police officers that are more important in reducing the crime rate
The author doesn’t say anything about whether other factors are more important than the number of police in reducing crime. The argument is just meant to suggest that other factors make a difference, not say which is most important.
D
demonstrate that there is no relation between the number of police officers and the crime rate
The author never denies that police numbers make a difference to crime rates, just that they’re the single, only factor. The statistics suggest that something else might also contribute to lowering crime rates, not that police numbers are irrelevant.
E
suggest that the number of police officers is not the only influence on the crime rate
This correctly identifies that the statistics act as a premise to support the conclusion that factors other than police numbers could help to address crime.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 109 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply