LR Question 4 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Statistical records of crime rates probably often…
QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Crime statistics aren’t accurate. They mostly tell us about the motives of those who produce crime statistics.
REASONING: A variety of people that produce crime statistics have incentives to raise or lower reported crime rates.
ANALYSIS: This argument lists several examples to prove its point.
Not much else to it.
___________
- The argument doesn’t give any evidence against its conclusion.
- CORRECT. The argument lists various organizations that have incentives to misreport crime rates.
- This is completely different. You make a general statement, then think of what would be true if that statement were true. Here’s an example. “I’m sure all Canadians must wear clown wigs. That must mean they look funny when they travel. And you can spot one at a distance. And clowns can blend in with crowds. And….”Note: I’m Canadian. I haven’t worn a clown wig since I was a kid.
- This is different. It’s like saying: “There are unemployed people. And there aren’t enough daycares. We should hire unemployed people to run a daycare.”Two problems, solved by a single solution.
- This is completely different. An example would be saying “Don’t worry that the new CEO has no experience. That just means he doesn’t know what can’t be done!”
More Resources for Method of Reasoning Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Method of Reasoning questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers method of reasoning questions.
I would like a more detailed explanation for why answer C isn’t correct. While I saw B and, having read it first, almost went with it–but then reading C i thought it was the better choice. I reasoned this because while they are both correct, C is a much more specific and detailed summary of the stimulus (and therefore the “more correct” answer choice, at least i thought).
I say this because it seems like C is exactly what the stimulus is doing. It says “Reported crime statistics mostly just tells us the motivations and biases of the entity collecting and/or reporting them.” It then goes on to, by simply assuming the claim is true, start citing examples of it like “police’s crime statistics just tell us whether police want people to think crime is down bc they’re doing a good job, or conversely that crime is up bc they want a larger budget” and “politician’s crime statistics are just tells us whether a politician wants to be elected or re-elected.”
Isn’t this precisely C: Taking an assumed-to-be-true generalization (i.e. that any reported statistics really only tells us about the biases/desires of the person reporting/collecting), then justifying that with examples where the generalization is assumed to be true?
Hey Paul,
C can really be thought of as the opposite of B.
B has examples used as a premise to support the conclusion. C, however, has a generalization used as a premise to support the conclusion (which would be the implications derived from the generalization).
So for the example Graeme used, “All Canadians wear clown wigs” is the premise and the following implications (they look funny, can be spotted from a distance, and clowns can blend in) are conclusions drawn from that premise.
Meanwhile, in the question, the conclusion is that statistical records of crime rates probably reflect the motives or methods of those who cite them. The stimulus then gives examples (politicians and police skewing for political purposes, newspapers sensationalizing) to illustrate why this is probably the case.
I hope this helps!