Logical Reasoning

PT101 · S2 · Q8 Sociologist: The claim that there

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Sociologist: The claim that there is a large number of violent crimes in our society is false, for this claim is based upon the large number of stories in newspapers about violent crimes.

Conclusion

The claim that there is a large number of violent crimes in our society is false. (i.e. there are not a large number of violent crimes in our society)

Intermediate Conclusion

Newspapers are very likely to report on violent crimes

Premise

Violent crimes are very rare occurrences.

Evaluate

This argument is kind of confusing to unpack. It's saying,

In a sense, the author is saying that people think violent crime is common because it's reported on so much, but it's reported on so much because it's rare.

It sounds like a reasonable argument in the Curious Fact / Explanation realm -- if people were asking, , their potential explanation could be, "There must be lots of violent crime".

Our author is pointing out an Alternate Explanation, saying

The problem is that when we point out Alternate Explanations, we're saying

This author is coming in with a, "Your explanation is definitely false; mine is correct."

Goal

Some people may have caught on to the Circular nature of this argument on the first read, but I think most of us don't see it.

Nevertheless, we could go to the answers thinking,

8.

The sociologist’s argument is flawed because it

  1. presupposes that most newspaper stories

    Too Strong: most

    Did this argument need to assume that at least 51% of newspaper stories are about violent crime? No, it just said "a large number", but that doesn't have to mean more than 50%. If 49% of stories were about violent crime, we would still say a large number of stories are about violent crime.

    12% picked this

  2. Correct

    presupposes the truth of the

    Why this is right

    This describes the famous Circular reasoning flaw, in which the premise is a restatement of the conclusion or assumes the truth of the conclusion. The conclusion the author is attempting to establish is that "there is not a large number of violent crimes in our society". Does the author have a premise restating that "there is not a large number of violent crimes"? Yes. She has a premise that says "since violent crimes are very rare occurrences". If we were defending the claim she's attacking, we'd be like, "Whoa, whoa, whoa. Who said that violent crime is rare? We think that there are a large number of violent crimes? You can't act like it's a known fact that violent crime is rare." This still gets at the objection we had that the author was too sure of her Alternate Explanation for the large number of news stories about violent crime. Her illicit certainty that she's right about her explanation is a different way of saying that she's already "assumed the truth of her conclusion".

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    70% picked this

  3. assumes without warrant that the

    Not an Assumption

    The author actually assumes that the newspaper stories are biased in favor of reporting violent crimes whenever they happen, since the author thinks those stories are rare and thus eventful occurrences. If we're talking about some other bias (not a bias in favor of reporting it), then this answer is just out of scope, since there's no other type of bias even in this conversation.

    4% picked this

  4. mistakes a property of each

    Wrong Flaw

    This describes the famous Part vs. Whole flaw, but this argument doesn't have anything resembling the structure of, Each part of X has trait Y. Therefore, X has trait Y.

    9% picked this

  5. uncritically draws an inference from

    Wrong Flaw

    This describes a common "temporal flaw" in which author's assume that what was true in the past will be true again in the future, but this argument doesn't have anything to do with the past or the future. This argument is just about whether there are presently a large number of violent crimes in this society.

    5% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free