PrepTest 104, Section 1, Question 15
Tony: Few anarchists have ever performed violent actions.(66 more words not shown)
Keisha responds to Tony's argument(7 more words not shown)
- AShe shows that(19 more words not shown)
- BShe attempts to(20 more words not shown)
- CShe questions the(10 more words not shown)
- DShe presents evidence(13 more words not shown)
- EShe indicates that(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
How many anarchists are there in the first place? A small group can have fewer violent members while a greater percentage of its members are violent.
Suppose there are ten violent anarchists out of fifteen anarchists in all. Another movement might have 1,000 violent members out of 100,000 members. The other movement has far more violent people in absolute numbers, but its violent members make up only one percent, compared with about two-thirds in the tiny group. These are invented numbers to show the distinction, not claims about actual political movements.
Tony compares the number of violent adherents and concludes that the public's special association is unwarranted. Keisha points out that the total group sizes differ greatly. Her claim is careful: the proportion of anarchists who are violent could be greater, even if Tony's counts are accurate.
What we’re looking for
The question asks how her response works. Our prediction is that she exposes what the headcount leaves out—the size of the group from which that count comes. We need proportions to assess the possibility she raises.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Tony uses absolute numbers: how many violent people belong to each group. Keisha points out that those counts can be misleading without the total number of adherents. Ten out of fifteen and 1,000 out of 100,000 illustrate how the smaller count can correspond to the much greater proportion.
She doesn't prove anarchists actually have the higher rate of violence. She shows why Tony's comparison doesn't rule it out, leaving his conclusion open to question.
- B
Keisha does add information about the relative sizes of the movements. But that information is compatible with Tony's evidence, not incompatible with it. Both can be true: other movements have more violent members, and anarchists may have a greater proportion of violent members. Our numerical example shows how.
- C
Keisha need not question the accuracy of either count. She can accept that few anarchists have been violent and that violent adherents of other ideologies greatly outnumber them. Her objection concerns what those facts establish without information about overall group size.
- D
She identifies a difference in the groups' size, not a total absence of significant similarities. The groups could share many characteristics and still differ in how a headcount relates to the proportion who are violent. D exaggerates her comparison.
- E
Keisha doesn't dispute which people count as anarchists or as adherents of other ideologies. She isn't accusing Tony of defining the groups to exclude inconvenient cases. Her concern is the use of numbers without the corresponding totals, not the membership criteria.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.