Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT120 S3 Q24 Explanation

Police commissioner: Last year our

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

TopicsWeaken

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Police commissioner: Last year our city experienced a 15 percent decrease in the rate of violent crime. At the beginning of that year a new mandatory sentencing law was enacted, which requires that all violent criminals serve time in prison. Since no other major policy changes were made must have been due to the new mandatory sentencing law.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.

Winning move

Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
24.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the police

Answer choices

  1. Unclear Impact8% picked this

    Studies of many other cities have shown a correlation between improving economic conditions and

    This type of idea vaguely suggests that the crime rate could be dropping from improving economic conditions. But we were never told that this city has improving economic conditions, so we would be totally speculating whether this answer choice is relevant to this city's crime rate drop.

  2. Unclear Impact13% picked this

    Prior to the enactment of the mandatory sentencing law, judges in the city had for many years already imposed unusually

    This isn't giving us any distinction about last year that would allow us to come up with an Alternate Explanation for the crime drop. But, could we say that this undermines the plausibility of the Author's Story? She's selling us on the idea that a law that mandates jail time for violent criminals was a meaningful change that deterred 15% of violent crime. If this city was already imposing unusually harsh penalties, though, is this mandatory sentencing law even going to be a meaningful change? What criminal would be deterred by a mandatory sentencing law if they're already expecting unusually harsh penalties from local judges? The problem is the vagueness of "unusually harsh penalties for some crimes". Do they include the violent crimes that this mandatory sentencing law addresses? Without knowing, there's no way to judge whether this has any impact.

  3. No Impact2% picked this

    Last year, the city’s overall crime rate decreased by only

    Since the mandatory sentencing law only dealt with violent crime, we're not expecting it to have any effect on overall crime. Given that we know violent crime went down by 15%, if an answer tells us that overall crime went down by 5%, that means that nonviolent crime went down by less than 5% (it may not have gone down at all / it may have even increased). But we really don't care about nonviolent crime.

  4. Strengthens, if anything15% picked this

    At the beginning of last year, the police department’s definition of “violent crime” was broadened to include 2 crimes

    This provides a factor that would lead to an increase in the violent crime statistic. Had this answer said that last year the police department's definition of "violent crime" was narrowed to exclude 2 crimes that were previously called "violent", it could serve as an alternate explanation for the 15% crime rate drop.

  5. Correct62% picked this

    The city enacted a policy 2 years ago requiring that 100 new police officers be hired in each

    Why this is right

    This gives us an Alternate Explanation for the the 15% crime rate drop -- there were 100 new police officers hired last year. This answer sneaks around the constraint that "no other major policy changes were enacted last year" by telling us about a policy change enacted 2 years ago that still has new ramifications last year. This answer, like all Alternate Explanations, involves us using some real world causal common sense. #DefundThePolice notwithstanding, if you asked 10 people on the street whet "adding more police officers could help to decrease the violent crime rate", most would say "of course that could happen".

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

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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