PrepTest 120, Section 3, Question 24
Police commissioner: Last year our city experienced a(58 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(9 more words not shown)
- AStudies of many(14 more words not shown)
- BPrior to the(22 more words not shown)
- CLast year, the(9 more words not shown)
- DAt the beginning(21 more words not shown)
- EThe city enacted(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A new law isn't the only thing that could make crime fall.
The commissioner gives us a 15 percent drop in violent crime after mandatory prison sentences began. The law could help: imprisoning people who would otherwise commit crimes might reduce crime. But the timing alone doesn't establish that explanation.
Then comes the attempted reassurance: no other major policies changed last year. That still leaves possibilities. What if the economy improved and fewer people turned to crime? What if something else changed in people's circumstances? A change doesn't have to be a newly enacted city policy to affect the crime rate.
What we’re looking for
For a weakener, I'd look for evidence supporting another cause. Another approach would be to show that the sentencing change didn't actually change what happened to criminals. Either could challenge the claim that the decline must be due to this law. We need a concrete reason to doubt that claim, not just a generally plausible story.
Working the answers
- A
This sounds like the economic explanation I considered, but it leaves something important missing: did this city's economy improve last year? A connection found in other cities gives us a possibility to investigate. It doesn't establish that the proposed alternative was operating here. I'd keep reading for an answer that supplies a more specific change in this city.
- B
This is tempting too. If judges already imposed the same prison sentences, a supposedly new policy might change little. But B doesn't establish that. Unusually harsh penalties for some crimes aren't necessarily prison terms for all violent crimes. The earlier penalties might concern other offenses, and the mandatory law could still change the treatment of many violent offenders. B leaves that important uncertainty.
- C
The overall rate includes crimes outside the violent category. A smaller decrease in the overall rate is compatible with a larger decrease in violent crime. The commissioner is explaining the latter, so this different overall figure doesn't identify an alternative cause or undermine the sentencing explanation.
- D
Broadening the category would tend to add incidents to what counts as violent crime. That doesn't explain away a reported decrease as the result of counting fewer types of offenses. It may make the decline more striking, but it doesn't tell us why the decline occurred or weaken the proposed cause.
- ECorrect
An older policy can produce a new change. This policy calls for 100 additional officers in each of the following three years, which includes the year whose crime decline we're explaining. Increased staffing is a concrete alternative to the sentencing explanation.
That answers the commissioner's claim on its own terms: even with no other major policy enacted last year, effects of an earlier policy could matter last year. Unlike A, E identifies a relevant change in this city. Unlike B, it doesn't depend on guessing which crimes already received which penalties. It doesn't prove the extra officers caused the decline; it makes the claim that sentencing must be the cause less convincing.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.