Logical Reasoning

PT139 · S4 · Q4 Statistical records of crime rates

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

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.

Conclusion

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.

Evidence

The police may underreport crime in order to convey the impression that they're are successfully preventing crime, or they may overreport crime in order to plausibly request a bigger operating budget.

Politicians might over-hype crime to get elected ("Only I can fix this!") or under-sell crime to remain in office ().

Newspapers often sensationalize crime to increase readership ("if it bleeds, it leads").

Evaluate / Goal

Wow. Five different examples of how someone's motives could bias the way they compile or cite crime stats.

Let's look for an answer saying that the author supports her general conclusion in the first sentence with several examples.

4.

The argument proceeds by doing which one of the following?

  1. evaluating evidence for and against

    Out of Scope: evidence against

    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.

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    citing examples in support of

    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.

    88% picked this

  3. deriving implications of a generalization

    Out of Scope: implications

    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.

    10% picked this

  4. enumerating problems for which it

    Out of Scope: solution

    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.

    0% picked this

  5. showing how evidence that apparently

    Out of Scope: evidence against

    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.

    1% 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