PrepTest 119, Section 2, Question 17
Legislator: The recently released crime statistics clearly show(80 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(16 more words not shown)
- Apointing out that(19 more words not shown)
- Barguing that the(24 more words not shown)
- Cobjecting that the(25 more words not shown)
- Dclaiming that the(29 more words not shown)
- Eimplying that the(25 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Crime went down after the law changed. Was the law the reason?
Maybe harsher punishment helped. But perhaps policing improved, or better economic conditions changed people's behavior. Those are possibilities to investigate, not facts we can assume. The legislator gives us a drop of one-fourth over four years after the new laws, which doesn't by itself separate the law's effect from other things happening at the time.
The analyst accepts the good news and adds a comparison: similar areas without the new laws saw a similar drop. Imagine Wyoming changing its punishments while nearby comparable states do not, and crime falling across all of them. A broader change could explain that pattern. We can't be as confident that Wyoming's legal change deserves the credit.
What we’re looking for
For the method question, identify exactly what the analyst adds. The same outcome appears where the proposed cause is absent. That challenges the causal conclusion without denying the original statistics or proving that the laws had no effect.
Working the answers
- A
The analyst doesn't question the reliability of the statistics. In fact, the reply welcomes them. The objection is that reliable numbers showing a decline would still leave its cause uncertain. A says the analyst attacks the trustworthiness of the evidence; the actual response attacks the conclusion drawn from it.
- B
A common-cause objection would suggest that some third factor produced both the new legislation and the drop in crime. That's not the comparison made here. The analyst points to crime dropping in places without the legislation, rather than identifying something that caused both events. Be precise about which two things the answer says share a cause.
- C
The analyst doesn't say four years is too short. The comparison uses a similar decline during the same period in other areas. A time period could be perfectly adequate for measuring the drop while the causal conclusion still failed.
- D
Nothing in the response attacks the legislator's motives. An accusation that the legislator personally benefits from harsh punishments would be a different strategy. This analyst stays with the crime-rate evidence and adds relevant comparison areas.
- ECorrect
The alleged effect is the drop in crime. The alleged cause is the new law imposing stiffer punishments. Comparable areas show the effect without that cause, so the analyst suggests the legislator has overlooked evidence important to identifying what produced the decline.
This doesn't establish that stricter punishment can never reduce crime. It shows why this before-and-after statistic alone doesn't strongly establish that explanation in this case.
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.