LR Drill Set 10, Question 12
A survey of North American universities that was(72 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(12 more words not shown)
- AIn general, the(25 more words not shown)
- BIn many cases,(32 more words not shown)
- COn average, universities(16 more words not shown)
- DSome of the(20 more words not shown)
- ESome of the(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Did the bolts bring the thefts, or did the thefts bring the bolts?
A university with no theft problem might never think to fasten expensive equipment to the floor. A university that keeps losing equipment has an obvious reason to try it. So the campuses using bolts could have been the campuses with the worst theft problems already.
The argument gives a different explanation. It suggests that securing equipment makes students feel distrusted, and those students become more likely to steal. But the survey only finds that theft was most common at campuses that adopted the policy during the same academic year. It doesn't tell us which happened first.
That timing matters. If a string of thefts prompted the policy, the annual theft count would include the very incidents that led officials to install the bolts. We could get the reported association without distrust causing a single additional theft.
What we’re looking for
For the weakener, I'd look for evidence that the policy was a response to theft. That would challenge the proposed trust explanation while accepting the survey's actual finding.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The universities generally introduced the policy after a rash of thefts early in the year. Now we have the missing sequence: theft first, protective response afterward.
The survey counts thefts during the whole academic year, so it groups those already theft-prone campuses under a policy they adopted in response. Their high theft totals therefore don't establish that the policy made students steal through a feeling of distrust. A supplies a direct alternative explanation of the observed association.
- B
Theft as a prank is still theft. A prank could occur because a student feels distrusted, or it could occur for unrelated reasons. The answer doesn't connect this motive to the difference between campuses that bolted equipment down and those that didn't. Changing what thieves intended to do with the equipment doesn't resolve the causal question.
- C
Campus size is a different comparison. Even if large and small universities have the same average number of thefts, the bolting policy could still be associated with theft for either the author's reason or our alternative reason. We aren't told how size relates to the policy, so this doesn't undermine the proposed explanation.
- D
Old equipment needing repairs can still be stolen. Its condition doesn't tell us whether perceived distrust prompted the theft or whether an existing theft problem prompted the bolts. The hypothesis concerns why theft happens, not whether every stolen item was in perfect condition.
- E
Vandalism instead of theft is another outcome, but what caused it? Some damaged bolted equipment doesn't tell us whether the policy increased theft or merely responded to it. We need information bearing on the proposed trust mechanism, not just another kind of misconduct occurring on campus.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.