QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument
CONCLUSION: The people who think that we need to increase the number of police to reduce crime are wrong. (i.e. police are not the only way to reduce crime)
REASONING: Statistics show that many cities have the same ratio of police to citizens. Yet the rate of crime is very different between cities.
ANALYSIS: This is a subtle argument. It argues against those who believe that more police are a necessary condition for lowering the crime rate.
The argument is not claiming that police do nothing to fight crime. They just aren’t the only factor. If they were the only factor then the crime rate would be the same in every city with the same police-to-citizens ratio.
- Not quite. The argument was only trying to show that police officers aren’t a necessary condition for a lower crime rate. But they might still work.
- The stimulus argued against this claim. It was implying that other factors also affect the crime rate
- The stimulus did not mention what the other factors are or if any are individually more important than the number of police. It could be that police are still the most important factor but not the only factor.
- This goes too far. The main point was that police are not the only factor. But they likely are a factor.
- CORRECT. If police were the only influence then the crime rate would be the same in each city.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly