QUESTION TYPE: Weaken
CONCLUSION: The friend concluded that there was bright lighting installed around the store.
REASONING: A store was frequently vandalized over six months. The owner mentioned to a friend that bright lighting around a store may reduce vandalism. Three months passed, and there was no more vandalism.
ANALYSIS: The friend is making a pretty tenuous assumption. They need to assume a few things:
- The owner did install the lights.
- The lights 100% reduced vandalism, despite normally only somewhat reducing it.
- No other cause also reduced vandalism.
Four answers violate one of these assumptions. The other answer merely is consistent with them. So, note that the correct answer doesn’t have to prove the friend right! It only has to not weaken his case.
___________
- Police patrols are an alternate cause; #3 in the list above. This weaken the friend’s argument.
- This makes the friend’s argument virtually impossible. There’s no way that lights were installed (#1 in the list above).
- CORRECT. This answer is ambivalent. It makes it sound like the owner installed lights and that those lights also protect neighbouring stores.
But it’s also possible that the store owner did something else, like hiring a team of night watchmen. Who knows? This answer doesn’t prove the friend right. However, unlike the other answers, it doesn’t prove him wrong, so that makes it the correct answer.
….It really would be nice though to actually ask the owner “hey, did you install lights”. - Like B, this answer makes the friend’s assumptions virtually impossible. If the lights weren’t installed (#1 in the list above), then obviously new lights couldn’t be the reason that the vandalism stopped.
- #3 in the list above. A guard dog is an alternate reason that vandalism may decline. So this provides an alternate explanation to lights.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply