Logical Reasoning

PT3 · S4 · Q23 In a new police program

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

In a new police program, automobile owners in some neighborhoods whose cars are not normally driven between 1 A.M.and 5 A.M. can display a special decal in the cars’ windows and authorize police to stop the cars during those hours to check the drivers’ licenses.

Background

In a new program, owners can put a special decal on their car authorizing police to stop the car between 1–5 A.M. to check the driver's license. Cars with the decal have a much lower theft rate than is usual for cars in those neighborhoods.

Conclusion

The program has reduced automobile theft.

Evaluate

The argument compares decal-bearing cars to the general theft rate in those neighborhoods. But the decal-bearers are self-selected — only owners who choose to participate. Such cautious owners might also take other anti-theft measures (alarms, locked garages, etc.). If they do, the lower theft rate could reflect those owners' general carefulness rather than the decal program itself.

Goal

The correct answer should ask whether the lower theft rate among decal cars is due to the decal program or to the broader caution of decal-using owners.

23.

If it is concluded from the statements above that automobile theft has been reduced by the program, which one of the following would it be most important to answer in evaluating that conclusion?

Correct
Are owners who are cautious
Why this is right
This is the right question to ask. If decal-using owners are also taking other special measures to protect their cars, the lower theft rate could be explained by those other measures — not by the decal program. Asking this question lets us evaluate whether the decal effect is real or whether it just reflects cautious owner behavior in general. A "yes" answer would weaken the argument; a "no" answer would strengthen it.
Skill tested: Evaluate · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
78% picked this
In how many neighborhoods is
No Impact
The number of neighborhoods running the program does not address whether the program itself causes the lower theft rate. Whether it operates in 5 neighborhoods or 50, the question is whether the decal effect is real or due to owner self-selection. The size of the rollout does not help answer that.
1% picked this
Are cars in neighborhoods that
No Impact
Daylight thefts in participating neighborhoods are outside the program's window (which runs 1–5 A.M.). The conclusion is about overall theft reduction, but knowing whether daylight thefts happen does not help distinguish program effect from owner caution. Either answer leaves the core question untouched.
11% picked this
Will owners who have placed
No Impact
Whether decal-bearing owners get harassed if they need to drive at 1–5 A.M. is a question about the program's side effects, not about whether it actually reduces theft. The conclusion is "theft is being reduced"; this answer addresses an entirely different concern.
3% picked this
Are the neighborhoods in which
No Impact
Whether the participating neighborhoods are representative on car types relates to generalizing the program elsewhere, not to whether the observed reduction in those neighborhoods is caused by the program. The argument's validity in its own context still depends on separating decal effect from owner self-selection — which this answer does not address.
7% 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