PrepTest 109, Section 3, Question 7
Unlike newspapers in the old days, today's newspapers(47 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(11 more words not shown)
- ANewspapers and televised(16 more words not shown)
- BNational data show(14 more words not shown)
- CPolice records show(16 more words not shown)
- DMurder comprised a(13 more words not shown)
- ENews magazines play(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More crime stories could mean more coverage, not more crime.
Imagine an editor deciding that murders and assaults attract readers. The paper could start reporting incidents it previously left out. We'd see more stories even if the amount of crime stayed the same—or fell. That is a possible explanation of the reporting change, not an established fact about these news organizations.
The author skips that possibility and concludes that violent crime is out of control. The recommendation to stay home rests on treating the news as a direct measure of danger. But we haven't been given crime totals or any assurance that old and new reporting cover the same share of what happens.
What we’re looking for
For a weakener, I'd look for evidence that the coverage changed. An incentive to run more crime stories could help, as could actual crime data contradicting the author's fear. The key is to separate how much crime gets reported from how much crime occurs.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
More comprehensive coverage means the news now captures incidents that earlier reporting might have left out. That gives us another explanation for the fuller crime pages and broadcasts: we may be hearing about more of the crime that occurs.
This isn't simply repeating that there are more stories. It tells us something about the way stories are selected and covered. That change makes it less reasonable to infer a change in danger directly from the number of reports.
A doesn't prove crime stayed constant or fell. It weakens the claim that the reporting change leaves us only one conclusion: crime must be out of control.
- B
If crime is out of control everywhere, that includes this city. The author doesn't need the city to be uniquely dangerous. B would support the concern about danger rather than undermine it, even though the national comparison goes beyond what the argument originally discussed.
- C
Being in your neighborhood isn't the same as being inside your home. You can leave the house and remain nearby. These records don't show that staying home fails to protect you, nor do they tell us that increased news coverage exaggerates the amount of crime. The neighborhood comparison doesn't answer the author's inference.
- D
A smaller share of a larger total could still be a larger number. Murder could account for less of all violent crime while both murders and other attacks increased. We aren't given the totals, and the author is concerned with violent crime generally. A change in the mix of crimes doesn't establish that the city is safer than the author thinks.
- E
A larger role for news magazines doesn't tell us whether crime has increased. Magazines might have replaced some other source of information, or simply become more influential. We need evidence that challenges the move from increased reports to increased danger, not just a fact about which medium informs people.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.