Logical Reasoning

PT157 · S3 · Q12 Columnist: Vagrancy laws are supposed

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

Columnist: Vagrancy laws are supposed to reduce criminal activity, but they don’t. Making vagrancy illegal means transforming many innocuous everyday occurrences into crimes.

Evidence

Making vagrancy illegal means transforming many innocuous everyday occurrences into crimes.

Conclusion

Vagrancy laws increase crime while purporting to reduce it.

Evaluate

The argument presents evidence about "transforming many innocuous everyday occurrences into crimes" and then makes a leap to a new concept in the conclusion—increasing crime.

The argument doesn't clearly explain what "increase crime" is intended to mean. It's reasonable to think this means that entirely new crimes take place, ones that did not occur before the vagrancy laws were passed. For example, in a certain town there might be 10 cases a month where someone actually trespasses on another person's property, but once vagrancy laws are passed that number jumps to 30 actual instances of trespassing.

However, the evidence suggests that something different could be happening. It suggests that actions which were not illegal become illegal once vagrancy laws are passed. This could mean, for example, that napping under a tree in a public park is legal until vagrancy laws make it illegal. The actual number of people who nap under trees might stay exactly the same, or even decrease, but because it is now a crime, there is a sudden increase in the number of people who are arrested or fined for it.

The argument doesn't clearly explain the link between innocuous occurrences becoming crimes and an increase in crime. It's not clear what "increase" actually means in this conclusion.

Goal

A correct answer might point out how the phrase "increase crime" is used in an unclear way. It might point out that the argument doesn't establish a clear link between innocuous occurrences becoming crimes and an actual increase in crime.

12.

The reasoning in the columnist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

  1. presumes, without providing any justification,

    Opposite, if anything

    The argument calls these everyday occurrences "innocuous," suggesting they are not harmful. It does not presume they are harmful to society — it says the opposite.

    2% picked this

  2. mistakenly infers, from the claim

    Bad Evidence Match

    The argument does not claim there is an increase in innocuous everyday occurrences. It says those occurrences are reclassified as crimes. The occurrences themselves may not increase at all — they simply receive a new legal classification. This answer mischaracterizes the evidence.

    21% picked this

  3. fails to specify what is

    No Impact

    The argument does not need to specify what the innocuous occurrences are. The flaw would exist regardless of whether examples were provided. Even if the argument named specific behaviors, it would still conflate reclassification with an actual increase in criminal activity.

    6% picked this

  4. fails to consider the possibility

    Out of Scope

    Whether crime would increase without vagrancy laws is irrelevant to the argument's flaw. The argument focuses on what happens when vagrancy laws are enacted. External factors affecting crime rates independently of vagrancy laws do not address the internal logical problem of conflating reclassification with an actual increase in crime.

    8% picked this

  5. Correct

    does not adequately distinguish between

    Why this is right

    This answer identifies the argument's core flaw. The argument uses "increase crime" in the conclusion without distinguishing between two very different meanings: (1) an actual increase in harmful criminal activity, and (2) the reclassification of previously legal behaviors as crimes. The evidence supports only meaning (2) — more things are now labeled as crimes — but the conclusion seems to claim meaning (1) — that there is more actual criminal activity. By failing to make this distinction, the argument equivocates on what "increase crime" means.

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

    63% 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