LR Question 7 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Unlike newspapers in the old days, today's newspapers…
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken
CONCLUSION: Violent crime is out of control! Don’t leave your house!
REASONING: The newspapers! They’re talking about crime! More than they used to!
ANALYSIS: The flaw here is that newspapers and TV may report an increasing amount of crime even if crime is not actually increasing. They might run lots of crime stories just because the ratings were good.
We should use actual crime statistics to decide whether to leave our houses or not.
___________
- CORRECT. This means that the media now gives crime much more attention. So the same level of crime would generate many more news stories.
- This strengthens the argument because it confirms that crime is out of control in the author’s city.
- It’s hard to say what this factoid means. It’s possible that people experience more crime in their neighborhood’s simply because they spend more time there. This definitely doesn’t let us weaken the argument.
- This could mean, for example, that previously there were 1,000 murders and 10,000 crimes overall. Now there could be 10,000 murders and 200,000 other crimes. Murders are a smaller proportion of crime now, but there are many more of them.
- This just tells us a fact about newspapers. It doesn’t tell us that we shouldn’t listen to newspapers.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
I run LSAT Hacks, and got a 177 on the LSAT. The single best thing I've ever made is the set of LSAT Mastery seminars. They show you how to think like a 170+ scorer when doing questions. Get them here: Mastery Seminars
I guarantee you'll like them, or you get your money back within 7 days. There's no risk. Check the reviews, people have said they improved within a few days.
---------
Photos and Updates: You can follow me on Instagram here
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
HELP! I took “comprehensive coverage” in (A) to mean that today’s reporters are more detailed in the crime stories, not that they are covering more crime stories. ow should I have avoided this mistake!?
Hey, so in a situation like this, it might be helpful to think of some real life examples.
So if A meant “more detailed crime stories,” we could potentially have a situation where all these news papers are covering Ted Bundy in super close details, but not mentioning other criminals. So you might think, “Geez, this Bundy guy is dangerous, but lucky there’s only one of him! I can still go outside.”
Which makes sense, since he can’t harm everyone, so the “one should not leave one’s home” part wouldn’t be very applicable. But if we take A to mean that reporters are dedicating more newspaper real estate to talking about ALL crimes (including crimes that were overlooked in the “old days”), then one might think that crime is out of control.