LSAT 147 – Section 1 – Question 02

LSAT 147 - Section 1 - Question 02

September 2016

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:45

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
PT147 S1 Q02
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
3%
153
B
6%
156
C
1%
149
D
1%
150
E
89%
163
135
143
151
 +Medium 147.09 +SubsectionMedium

A lack of trust in one’s neighbors leads to their lack of respect for the law. A new study provides compelling evidence for this. Neighborhoods in which people routinely lock their doors have higher burglary rates than neighborhoods in which people do not routinely lock their doors.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that lack of trust in one’s neighbors leads to committing crimes. This is based on a study which showed a correlation between neighborhoods in which people routinely lock their doors (taken to be evidence of lack of trust) and higher burglary rates.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks alternate explanations for the correlation. Perhaps it’s not that lack of trust leads to a higher burglary rate, but rather, a higher burglary rate leads to lack of trust of neighbors. Or perhaps there’s some third factor that causes both a lack of trust and a higher burglary rate.

A
treats something that is merely sufficient to produce a result as if it were necessary to produce that result
The argument isn’t based on conditional reasoning, so there’s no confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions. There’s nothing presented as sufficient to produce lack of trust or sufficient to produce crimes.
B
draws a moral conclusion from evidence that could only support a factual conclusion
The conclusion is not a “moral” conclusion. It doesn’t involve a value judgment or opinion about what’s good or bad. The conclusion is merely a causal claim.
C
bases its conclusion on data that are contradictory
The argument doesn’t contradict itself. The evidence shows a correlation, and the author proposes a causal interpretation of it.
D
asserts in a premise what it is trying to establish in its conclusion
(D) describes circular reasoning. The conclusion asserts cause; the study describes a correlation. The conclusion is therefore not restated in the premise.
E
treats what could be the effect of something as if it were the cause of that thing
People locking their doors could be an effect of higher burglary rates. But the author assumes that it’s causing higher burglary rates. (E) points out the author overlooks an alternate explanation for the correlation.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 147 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply