Logical Reasoning

PT127 · S1 · Q6 Violent crime in this town

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

Violent crime in this town is becoming a serious problem.

Conclusion

The average citizen of this town is more likely than ever to become a victim of a violent crime.

Evidence

Local law enforcement agencies have responded to 17 percent more calls involving violent crimes compared to last year.

Evaluate

The author is interpreting a statistical change, so we can use our Explain Curious Fact mindset.

CURIOUS FACT: why have local law enforcement agencies responded to 17% more calls involving violent crime?

EXPLANATION: there is more violent crime!

We can weaken by suggesting an alternative reason for the increased number of calls or undermining the assumption that more calls equate to increased crime rates.

Goal

Identify an answer choice that provides an alternate explanation for the increased call volume or hurts the plausibility of the idea that violent crime is actually on the rise.

6.

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

  1. The town’s overall crime rate

    Strengthens

    This states that the overall crime rate has risen, which aligns with the idea that violent crime (part of overall crime) has also risen, supporting the author’s conclusion.

    3% picked this

  2. In general, persons under the

    No Impact

    This discusses the likelihood of violent crime victimization by age group, which doesn't directly address the overall likelihood of violent crimes occurring or the reasoning behind increased call volume.

    3% picked this

  3. Correct

    As a result of the

    Why this is right

    This asserts that more people are willing to report violent crimes due to community outreach programs, providing an alternate explanation for the increase in call volume that does not indicate an actual increase in crime rates or risk per citizen. LSAT loves to test the idea that "a greater awareness of a problem doesn't necessarily mean there's a higher incidence of the problem".

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

    84% picked this

  4. In response to worries about

    Strengthens (if anything)

    This mentions a community center providing activities, potentially aiming to reduce crime. However, it indirectly acknowledges worries about crime, which may inadvertently support the author's concern about increased incidents.

    1% picked this

  5. Community officials have shown that

    No Impact

    This notes that a small number of repeat offenders commit most violent crimes, which doesn’t directly impact the argument’s conclusion about increased call volume and citizen risk, focusing instead on criminal dynamics.

    9% 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