Questions Question 14

This is an Argument Part question, so we have to describe the role played in the argument by the statement that "many major cities had similar ratios of police officers to citizens, yet diverged widely in their crime rates."

Like all other LR questions, we try to identify the conclusion and the premises first.

This passage is sneaky. It start by telling us that "many people believe X". Normally, when we encounter a passage that starts like that, what's the upshot? What's the conclusion?

That those people are wrong in their moronic beliefs.

I mean, if I just told you "Look man, I know that lots of people believe X, but Y". You actually get a lot of information out of this right?

You must hear me communicating to you that those people are wrong. The structuring of that sentence, using "but" says that much.

In this passage, we're suppose to hear that increasing the number of police officers is not the only way to remedy crime. That's the unspoken conclusion.

Why should we believe it?

Just look at all these major cities with about the same number of cops to citizens (say, 1 cop for every 1,000 citizens). Yet, they all have very different levels of crime.

We are prodded to draw the conclusion that there must be some other factor that influence the level of crime. In other words, number of cops isn't the only factor. That's answer choice (E).

(C) is wrong because it's not clear what counts as a "proof". If they mean validity, then certainly this argument doesn't meet that high standard. Additionally, (C) says there are other factors that are "more important" than the number of cops. We have some information that there exists other factors, maybe. But we have no information about the relative causal strength of those factors. Which one is more important?

(D) is wrong because the idea of "having no effect" is very different from the idea of "being one causal component amongst many".

37 comments

LSAT 109 - Section 3 - Question 14

September 13, 2012

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.