LR Question 11 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: Police chief: During my tenure as chief, crime in this…
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken
CONCLUSION: The police chief says her strategy caused the 20% drop in crime.
REASONING: A 20% drop in crime occurred while the chief was using her strategy.
ANALYSIS: The chief has made an extremely weak argument. They’ve only shown a correlation: Their strategy happened at the same time the drop in crime happened.
But we don’t know what would have happened without the strategy. Maybe crime would have fallen by the same amount or even further.
Note that the final bit of the argument is useless fluff. The information about real-time crime data and focussing police resources is merely context that explains what the chief’s strategy was. The argument would be exactly as strong if the chief had said “my strategy of making police wear funny hats.”
___________
- The total amount of crime doesn’t matter. Only the direction matters. If a chief takes over a dangerous city, it’s reasonable to expect the crime rate to remain high even if the chief succeeding in lowering the crime rate.
- So? It’s normal for crime rates to change a lot over a long period of time. We only care about the change in crime since the chief took over.
(Ok, if the chief took over in an unusually high year, that would be relevant. But crime rates decades ago are too far back to matter to the chief’s record.) - So? A decline is still a decline. And the fact that crime didn’t rise again shows that the chief’s results had staying power!
- CORRECT. This destroys the chief’s argument. The chief’s strategy doesn’t look so great now that we know that the rest of the country experienced an even greater decline. (Presumably with no special strategy.)
- It doesn’t matter about different areas of the city. The chief’s argument only refers to the city as a whole.
More Resources for Weaken Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Weaken questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers weaken questions.
Can you go into more detail about why D is correct? It seemed odd to compare the city crime to overall country crime as a way to weaken. Curious if you can shed more light on this question. Thank you!
The key to understanding why D is correct is because it plays a role in undermining the police chief’s explanation for the drop in crime by providing an alternative explanation. The chief argues that the drop in crime in his city is “clearly” due to his policing strategy. For this to hold up, it must be true that the policing strategy is the sole factor driving the reduction in crime.
Answer D states that the crime rate in the country as a whole fell by around 30% during the same period. This weakens the police chief’s claim because it suggests that the reduction in crime could be a part of a nationwide trend rather than uniquely because of his strategy in his city. If crime is falling everywhere, it brings to light whether the city’s drop is due to anything specific the police has done, or if external factors are responsible. Think of things like economic changes, national crime reduction efforts, harsher penalties for crime federally, etc. Such external factors could contribute to a nationwide drop in crime, including in the police chief’s city.
While the comparison between city and country may feel unnatural, it’s highly relevant because it provides a plausible alternative explanation for the crime drop. The stimulus assumes the city’s policing strategy is the causal factor, but if crime is declining nation wide, this assumption is weakened. If his strategy is the SOLE reason why crime is dropping, then why is everywhere else in the nation experiencing the same?
Hopefully that clarifies the answer for you, let me know if you still have questions!