LSAT 139 – Section 4 – Question 04

LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 04

June 2013

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:55

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
PT139 S4 Q04
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
0%
153
B
87%
165
C
12%
163
D
0%
154
E
1%
147
120
124
147
 +Easiest 148.326 +SubsectionMedium

Video of JY doing this

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

Statistical records of crime rates probably often reflect as much about the motives and methods of those who compile or cite them as they do about the actual incidence of crime. The police may underreport crime in order to convey the impression of their own success or overreport crime to make the case for a budget increase. Politicians may magnify crime rates to get elected or minimize them to remain in office. Newspapers, of course, often sensationalize crime statistics to increase readership.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that crime statistics likely reveal as much about the motives of those who report them as they do about actual crime rates. She supports this with three examples: police may underreport or overreport crime to influence their image or budget; politicians may exaggerate or downplay crime to help their campaigns; and newspapers may sensationalize crime to boost readership.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The author supports her conclusion by providing three examples that demonstrate its truth.

A
evaluating evidence for and against its conclusion
The author only presents evidence for her conclusion; she doesn’t evaluate evidence against it.
B
citing examples in support of its conclusion
The author cites three examples to support her conclusion. She cites police, politicians, and newspapers as examples of groups that may overreport or underreport crime statistics for their own purposes.
C
deriving implications of a generalization that it assumes to be true
The author’s three examples— police, politicians, and newspapers who may manipulate crime statistics— are not necessary implications of an assumed generalization. Instead, they’re examples that serve as evidence to support the author’s conclusion.
D
enumerating problems for which it proposes a general solution
The author never proposes a general solution, nor does she claim that the manipulation of crime statistics is a problem in the first place. She simply states her conclusion and gives examples to back it up.
E
showing how evidence that apparently contradicts its conclusion actually supports that conclusion
The author’s evidence never appears to contradict her conclusion. It supports her conclusion by providing three examples that demonstrate it.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 139 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply