PrepTest 109, Section 3, Question 14
Many people think that the only way to(36 more words not shown)
The statistics cited function in(3 more words not shown)
- Aestablish that the(10 more words not shown)
- Billustrate the need(10 more words not shown)
- Cprove that there(18 more words not shown)
- Ddemonstrate that there(13 more words not shown)
- Esuggest that the(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Only more police? What about other conditions that might affect crime?
I would wonder about employment or education, for example. A person might have different opportunities in different cities. Those are possible influences to investigate, not facts the passage establishes about these particular places.
The statistics then give us a reason to look beyond police staffing: cities with similar numbers of officers relative to their populations have very different crime rates. Similar staffing doesn't completely settle the result.
Be careful not to push that into “Police have no effect.” Imagine two equally populated cities: one starts with one hundred incidents, and the other starts with fifty. Adding the same number of officers could cut those figures to fifty and twenty-five. The cities would still have different crime rates even though the added officers helped both. Different outcomes don't show the intervention did nothing.
What we’re looking for
We're asked what the statistics do in the argument. I'd describe their role as challenging the idea that staffing is the whole explanation. They suggest some other influences are involved; they don't settle how large those influences are or whether either city should hire more officers.
Working the answers
- A
The figures don't establish that no increase is needed. A city could have other sources of crime and still benefit from more officers. The comparison doesn't give us a staffing target or a complete assessment of what either city needs.
- B
Different crime rates don't, by themselves, demonstrate a need for more officers. The rates could both be low, or other approaches could be worth considering. The author uses the difference to question a one-factor explanation, not to call for an increase in staffing.
- C
Other factors could matter without being more important than police staffing. The statistics give no ranking of their effects. C starts with a relevant idea, then adds a comparative claim the argument hasn't supported.
- D
This goes too far. Police numbers could have a relationship with crime while other influences also affect the result. Our two-city example shows how both cities could benefit and still end up with different rates. The figures don't demonstrate that police numbers have no effect at all.
- ECorrect
This states the limited point the comparison supports. If similar staffing ratios coexist with very different crime rates, we have reason to think staffing is not the only influence.
The statistics leave open what the other influences are and how important police remain. That's why “suggest” and “not the only influence” fit better than the stronger claims about no relationship or other factors being more important.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.