PrepTest 126, Section 4, Question 1
Carl is clearly an incompetent detective.(28 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(8 more words not shown)
- ABecause the police(23 more words not shown)
- BBefore he became(20 more words not shown)
- CDetectives on the(24 more words not shown)
- DCarl was previously(25 more words not shown)
- EMany of the(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I'm not ready to call Carl incompetent. What cases are we giving him?
Solving one out of twenty-five sounds bad until we know what those twenty-five cases involve. Imagine Carl gets the old, difficult cases that everyone else has already failed to solve. Meanwhile, another detective gets something as simple as figuring out who took a cookie when there's a camera recording the room. Comparing their success rates would tell us very little about their relative ability. Carl could actually be the best detective on the force. That could be why the department gives him its hardest work. His low percentage might reflect a harder assignment, not a lack of skill.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to weaken the accusation. I'd look for that difference in difficulty: Carl gets cases that other detectives couldn't solve. We can accept the one-in-twenty-five figure while challenging what the author thinks it proves.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Carl gets only the most difficult cases, including cases other detectives have failed to solve. That gives us exactly the explanation we wanted for his low success rate. The chief's high opinion alone wouldn't settle his competence, but the resulting difference in assignments directly undermines this comparison. One success out of twenty-five extremely difficult cases could be an achievement.
- B
Being respected as a neighborhood police officer doesn't establish skill as a detective. Residents might appreciate Carl's kindness or how well he keeps the peace. He could have done that job well and still struggle to solve cases. B tells us about a different job without explaining the low success rate in this one.
- C
Access to resources doesn't show that Carl is good at using them or that his cases are comparable to everyone else's. All the detectives could have the same database while Carl receives much harder cases. This doesn't give us a reason to reject the accusation.
- D
Another low success rate doesn't defend Carl. It repeats the kind of result the author treats as evidence of incompetence, this time in another city. We would still want to know how difficult those cases were, but D supplies no favorable explanation of either result.
- E
The department's hiring and promotion history doesn't tell us why Carl solved so few cases. Were his assignments harder? Did he do a good job with them? Knowing when many officers joined or were promoted answers neither question.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.