Logical Reasoning

PT126 · S4 · Q1 Carl is clearly an incompetent

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

Carl is clearly an incompetent detective.

Conclusion (clearly)

Carl is an incompetent detective.

Evidence

Carl has solved the smallest percentage of his assigned cases over the last 3 years (1 out of 25) — lower than any other detective on the force.

Evaluate

The evidence is comparative and the conclusion is suggesting a causal explanation for that evidence, so we have the ol' Explain Curious Fact template.

CURIOUS FACT - why is Carl's success rate of solving cases so much worse than all the other detectives?

AUTHOR'S EXPLANATION - he's incompetent at his job, so he's unable to solve cases.

Goal

We most commonly weaken this style of argument by pointing to an Alternate Explanation for the curious fact. Maybe Carl isn't incompetent; he just fails to solve as many cases because he's given the toughest cases, or he's given less time to solve them, or he's given fewer resources with which to solve them. We'd love any type of answer that "makes an excuse" for his low solve rate, so that we don't have to blame it on incompetence.

Otherwise, we'd love an answer attacking the plausibility of the author's story and making it seem like Carl is competent!

1.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

  1. Correct

    Because the police chief regards

    Why this is right

    This actually achieved both goals: it's not plausible that Carl is an incompetent detective if the chief regards Carl as the most capable detective. And it provides an alternate explanation for why Carl's success rate is so low: he only works on the hardest cases, the ones other detectives couldn't solve.

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

    97% picked this

  2. Before he became a detective,

    No Impact

    This somewhat helps attack the idea that he's incompetent, since it says that he was highly respected as a neighborhood patrol officer. But this is less compelling than (A). This doesn't speak to whether he is competent as a detective. The skillset of walking around the neighborhood and patrolling a beat is a different skill set from trying to solve a mystery.

    0% picked this

  3. Detectives on the police force

    No Impact

    This actually strengthens by ruling out an Alternate Explanation for the low solution rate. If all detectives have access to the same extensive resources, then Carl is on a level playing field with everyone else. We can't blame his low success rate on being deprived of the right tools.

    2% picked this

  4. Carl was previously a detective

    Premise Support

    This strengthens the author's notion that Carl sucks. At his other job, he was even worse.

    1% picked this

  5. Many of the officers in

    No Impact

    The hiring or promotion rate of other officers doesn't do anything. It doesn't help us argue that Carl is a competent detective, nor does it offer some alternate explanation for why his rate of solving crimes is lower than everyone else's.

    0% 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