Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT139 S4 Q4 Explanation

Statistical records of crime rates

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

TopicsMethod

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

Start practicing free

Free to start

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

Statistical records of crime rates probably often reflect as much about the motives and methods of those who compile or cite them as they do about the actual incidence of crime. The police may underreport crime in order to convey the impression of their own success or overreport crime to make the remain in office. Newspapers, of course, often sensationalize crime statistics to increase readership.

What this question is testing

Method

Your task

Describe how the argument proceeds — the technique it uses to reach its conclusion.

Common trap

Answers that describe a method the argument doesn't actually use.

Winning move

Track the role each statement plays, then match that to the choice describing the same moves.

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

The question
4.

The argument proceeds by doing which one of

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope: evidence against1% picked this

    evaluating evidence for and against its

    There's only a conclusion in the first sentence and then three premises (all examples of the conclusion). There's never any counterevidence presented or considered.

  2. Correct88% picked this

    citing examples in support of its

    Why this is right

    The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sentences are all examples of how the methods/motives of those compile (police) or cite (newspapers/politicians) crime stats could influence how those stats are compiled or cited.

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

  3. Out of Scope: implications9% picked this

    deriving implications of a generalization that it assumes to

    Deriving an implication is talking announcing a must-be-true inference that follows from a certain fact. For example, if we make the generalization that "All classes do something worthwhile for the students in that class", then we could derive the implication that "if Lebron James took a class in basketball, he would derive something worthwhile". The generalization in the first sentence of this argument just says that "crime stats often reflect bias as much as actual incidence". If we said "classes often do something worthwhile for the students in the class", then we wouldn't be able to derive for sure that Lebron would get something worthwhile out of the class.

  4. Out of Scope: solution0% picked this

    enumerating problems for which it proposes a

    Nothing here is labeled as a problem, but even if we used our common sense and thought of these examples as problematic, there's definitely no solution offered.

  5. Out of Scope: evidence against1% picked this

    showing how evidence that apparently contradicts its conclusion actually supports

    There's only a conclusion in the first sentence and then three premises (all examples of the conclusion). There's never any evidence that apparently contradicts the conclusion.

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