LSAT 152 – Section 2 – Question 05

LSAT 152 - Section 2 - Question 05

November 2018

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

Target time: 1:13

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
PT152 S2 Q05	+LR +Exp	Except +Exc Weaken +Weak Causal Reasoning +CausR	A 1% 151 B 4% 156 C 89% 163 D 4% 155 E 2% 158	127 138 149	+Easier	147.463 +SubsectionMedium

A store was vandalized repeatedly over a six-month period. When discussing the problem with a friend, the store owner mentioned having heard that bright lighting around the perimeter of commercial establishments had been known to reduce the incidence of vandalism. Three months later, the store owner reported to the same friend that there had been no incidents of vandalism since their previous conversation. The friend concluded that bright lighting had been installed around the perimeter of the store.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The friend hypothesized that bright lighting had been installed around the perimeter of the store. This is based on the fact that the store owner had mentioned to the friend that bright lighting has been known to reduce the rate of vandalism, and three months after that conversation, the rate of vandalism at the store owner’s store had dropped to zero.

Notable Assumptions

The friend assumes that there’s no other explanation for why the rate of vandalism dropped besides the installation of bright lighting around the perimeter. The friend also assumed that it was possible for the store owner to install bright lighting around the perimeter.

There had been an increase in police patrolling of the area.

This provides an alternate explanation for the drop in vandalism.

Bright lights must be specially ordered from a security company, and installation by the company usually takes at least five months.

Since the report of a drop in vandalism occurred only three months after the initial conversation, (B) provides a reason to think the store owner wouldn’t have been able to install bright lighting yet.

The store owner reported that all the stores adjacent to the perimeter also experienced a reduction in vandalism, although stores one block away did not.

This provides evidence that could support the theory that bright lights had been installed. Stores near those lights also experienced a drop in vandalism, but stores that were not near those lights did not experience a drop.

The store’s budget did not allow for the installation of bright lights around the perimeter.

This provides a reason to think the store owner would not have been able to install bright lights around the perimeter.

LSAT 152 – Section 2 – Question 05

LSAT 152 - Section 2 - Question 05

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 152 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel