Logical Reasoning

PT109 · S3 · Q14 Many people think that the

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

Many people think that the only way to remedy the problem of crime is by increasing the number of police officers, but recent statistics show that many major cities had similar ratios of police officers to citizens, yet diverged widely in their crime rates.

Conclusion (Implied Rebuttal)

Increasing the number of cops isn't the only way to fix crime.

Evidence

Many major cities have similar ratios of police officers to citizens, yet their crime rates diverged widely.

Evaluate

The author isn't claiming police don't matter at all, or that we don't need more police. The author is using the statistics to undercut the strong claim that police count is the only way to fix crime.

Same police levels yielding different crime rates means something else must be influencing crime, alongside police count.

This argument is an implicit variation of the common Faulty Implications style of rebuttal. If they were right (that the only way to fix crime was more cops), then you'd expect cities with similar police presence to have similar crime rates. But statistics show that there are cities with similar police but very different crime rates. So, they're not right.

Goal

Pick any answer that says something accurate. The author uses statistics to undermine a strong causal claim and to suggest that Alternative influences on crime must exist.

14.

The statistics cited function in the argument to

  1. establish that the number of

    Too Strong

    The statistics don't establish that the police force doesn't need to be increased. They show police count isn't the only factor. We could need to increase the police force and ALSO need to address other factors in order to remedy the problem of crime.

    5% picked this

  2. illustrate the need for increasing

    Opposite

    The author's implied conclusion is just the flipped version of the Attribution in the first sentence: "more cops is not the only way to address crime". This answer sounds more like the Opposite of that.

    1% picked this

  3. prove that there are factors

    Too Strong

    Yes, the author is using statistics to suggest that there are other influences on crime. But "Prove" overstates the evidence, and "more important" goes beyond what the statistics show. The data shows different crime rates with similar police levels — that suggests other factors matter, but doesn't prove they're more important than police count.

    7% picked this

  4. demonstrate that there is no

    Too Strong

    "No relation" is way too strong. The data shows police count isn't the only influence; it doesn't show police count has no influence. And demonstrate (like prove) is a really strong verb, for an argument with only an implied conclusion. A rebuttal that basically increases doubt isn't going as far as proving / demonstrating anything.

    18% picked this

  5. Correct

    suggest that the number of

    Why this is right

    Ahhh, soft verb and the correct implied conclusion. The original attribution was that police are the only influence on crime. The author pushes back against that with her statistics, suggesting that police are not the only influence on crime.

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

    70% 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