LSATHacks
  • Explanations
  • Tutoring
  • Courses
  • Login
  • Cart
  • Explanations
  • Tutoring
  • Courses
  • Login
  • Cart
LSAT Explanations › Preptest 157 › Logical Reasoning › Question 12

LSAT 157 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q12

LSAT Preptest 157 explanations

LR Question 12 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Columnist: Vagrancy laws are supposed to reduce criminal…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Vagrancy laws increase crime while purporting to reduce it.

REASONING: Vagrancy laws are meant to reduce crime, but make many innocuous everyday activities illegal.

ANALYSIS: The author clearly opposes the vagrancy laws in question. The author says that there are innocuous activities occurring everyday that would be reclassified as crime under these laws. They then say that this means the laws will result in an increase in crime.

But is this true? More things will be considered crimes, but those things aren’t going to happen more often than before. In fact, they might become less frequent when they’ve been reclassified, because people will want to avoid criminal penalty. The author is equating “more things are criminal” with “more crimes being committed”. This is their error.

___________

  1. The author is not presuming this. In describing them as “innocuous”, it would seem that the author doesn’t consider them as harmful as do the people making the vagrancy laws.
  2. We don’t actually have a claim that vagrancy laws cause an increase in the innocuous activities. The author can’t be inferring anything based on a claim that doesn’t exist!
  3. The author doesn’t need to specify what “innocuous everyday activities” are. The exact activity is irrelevant.
  4. It’s true that crime could increase without the vagrancy laws, but that isn’t a flaw in the argument. The author is arguing a specific effect of the laws, not that the effect is solely produced by those laws.
  5. CORRECT. The author notes that innocuous activities will be reclassified as crimes, and uses that to say crimes will go up. These two are not the same. More things will be classified as criminal, but crime rates won’t necessarily increase.

Recap: The question begins with “Columnist: Vagrancy laws are supposed to reduce criminal”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.

Previous Question
↑ Return to PT 157
Next Question

More Resources for Flaw Questions

  • Flaw drills: Use these to practice making examples of abstract flaws.
  • Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Flaw questions.
  • Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers flaw questions.
Quick Jump PT Section Que

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

I scored a 177 on the LSAT. I founded LSATHacks and created the LSAT Mastery Seminars to help students succeed.

I’ve personally written explanations for 5,000+ LSAT questions. If you find these explanations helpful, you'll definitely like our courses.

Join my email list for LSAT study tips and resources.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Free LSAT Email Course

My best LSAT tips, straight to your inbox

Increase Your Score

LSATHacks Courses Aiming For The 170S? See exactly how a top scorer thinks INCREASE YOUR SCORE
“The seminars teach you how to think like a high-scorer so that you can choose the correct answer quickly.” — Jay
“Not only did my score improve but I was able to approach LR with utter confidence” — Kacie L.

Resources

  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Free Email Course
  • LSAT Preptest Converter
  • Experimental Section Checker
  • LSAT Prep Books

About LSATHacks

  • About/Contact
  • Courses
  • Free Trial

Community

  • Discord
  • Social Media
  • Webinars
Disclaimer: Use of these explanations requires official LSAT preptests. LSAT is a registered trademark of LSAC.
LSAC does not review or endorse specific test preparation materials or services and has not reviewed this site.

© Copyright 2026 LSATHacks. All Rights Reserved. | Privacy | Terms