PrepTest 139, Section 4, Question 4
Statistical records of crime rates probably often reflect(74 more words not shown)
The argument proceeds by doing(5 more words not shown)
- Aevaluating evidence for(4 more words not shown)
- Bciting examples in(4 more words not shown)
- Cderiving implications of(8 more words not shown)
- Denumerating problems for(6 more words not shown)
- Eshowing how evidence(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Those numbers may tell us something about the person reporting them, too.
The examples make that concern easy to understand. Police could report less crime to make their work look successful, or more crime to argue for a bigger budget. A candidate could emphasize high crime to win office, then emphasize low crime when seeking another term. A newspaper could make crime sound more dramatic to attract readers. Different goals could shape the presentation of the same subject.
That gives us reasons to be cautious, though a motive to distort information doesn't by itself prove that someone actually did so. I might also wonder whether we could check the records or correct for the distortion. The author doesn't answer those questions.
What we’re looking for
We're asked how the argument proceeds. Its broad claim is that crime statistics probably often reflect the motives and methods of the people producing or using them. The police, politicians, and newspapers provide examples supporting that claim. That's the description to look for.
Working the answers
- A
We do get support for the conclusion, but we don't get evidence against it. The author doesn't consider accurate records produced despite someone's incentive to distort them. Our own reservations while reading aren't counterarguments that the passage itself evaluates.
- BCorrect
The author states a broad conclusion, then supplies examples of how motives could influence crime statistics. Police seeking a budget increase, politicians seeking votes, and newspapers seeking readers each illustrate the proposed problem. The examples support the conclusion even if they don't establish how often every kind of distortion occurs.
- C
This would start by accepting a general claim and then working out what else follows from it. For example, an author might accept that records are distorted and argue that we should change how we use them in policy decisions. Here, the examples are offered as reasons to believe the general claim in the first place.
- D
Where is the proposed solution? The passage illustrates a problem but doesn't recommend an audit, a new reporting system, or any other fix. We can wonder how to improve the records, but the argument doesn't take that further step.
- E
None of the examples initially appears to count against the conclusion and then gets reinterpreted as support. They straightforwardly illustrate reasons people might distort statistics. This answer adds a reversal that the argument never makes.
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.