Logical Reasoning

PT152 · S2 · Q5 A store was vandalized

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

A store was vandalized repeatedly over a six-month period.

Conclusion

Bright lighting has been installed around the perimeter of the store.

Evidence

This guy has a buddy whose store was getting repeatedly vandalized. The buddy mentioned that he'd heard perimeter fencing might be a solution to that problem. A short while later, the problem was solved, so he's assuming his buddy went with the option he knew his buddy was considering.

Evaluate

This is a very reasonable speculation. We know our friend has a problem (ongoing vandalism). We hear them mention a possible solution (bright lighting around perimeter). When we eventually learn that the problem has been solved, we assume they solved it with the means we had heard them discussing.

This argument can be thought of in the usual Curious Fact / Explanation framework: Curious Fact - Why did the vandalism stop? Author's Story - My buddy must've installed that perimeter lighting he was talking about.

Weaken by 1. suggesting some Other Way to explain [ why the vandalism stopped ] or 2. lowering the plausibility of the Author's Way, [ perimeter lighting stopped the vandalism ]

Goal

We just need to find four answers that either suggest - something ELSE that explains why the vandalism problem went away or - something that makes it seem less likely that our buddy actually went with that perimeter lighting plan we'd heard him considering.

5.

Each of the following, if true, would call into question the friend's conclusion EXCEPT:

  1. There had been an increase

    Alternate Explanation

    This weakens by giving a different reason for the Curious disappearance of the vandalism problem. The vandalism could have disappeared because there were more cops patrolling the area, so we have less reason to think the store owner installed bright lights.

    1% picked this

  2. Bright lights must be specially

    Hurts Author's Explanation

    If installing lights takes a minimum of 5 months, but friend talked to the store owner 3 months ago. At that point the store owner was still considering this plan of installing lights, so he was still at least 5 months from having them up and operational. Thus, it's very unlikely, if not impossible, that the author's explanation could be correct.

    5% picked this

  3. Correct

    The store owner reported that

    Why this is right

    This adds some plausibility to the prediction that perimeter lights were installed. Perimeter lighting is a deterrent for the building it's on, but the glare of those lights usually makes the adjacent area still pretty brightly lit. By the time you get a block or more away, it could be very dark again. So the fact that the stores within range of the glare of the lights have less vandalism, whereas the stores a block away don't makes it seem like there is a VERY local causal difference-maker. What could be putting a stop to vandalism on one specific block? Knock-knock. Who's there. Perimeter lighting. (note: the correct answer did not need to Strengthen. It's only because this is an earlier, easier problem that the correct answer is going the opposite direction. Often, if not mostly, on EXCEPT questions, the correct answer just has no impact)

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

    86% picked this

  4. The store’s budget did not

    Hurts Author's Explanation

    This makes it sound like the perimeter lighting plan would not have happened, since they wouldn't have been able to afford it.

    5% picked this

  5. The store owner brought in

    Alternate Explanation

    Sgt. Slobber, on duty. Protecting the store against vandals. The ongoing vandalism could have stopped stopped because the store brought in a watch dog, so we have less reason to assume they installed perimeter lighting. (I don't know why, but I'm definitely picturing a bulldog, wearing a denim-vest with a badge, smiling and not looking all that intimidating)

    3% 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