PrepTest 140, Section 2, Question 6
Detective: People who repeatedly commit crimes like embezzlement(56 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AThe majority of(9 more words not shown)
- BPeople who commit(10 more words not shown)
- CEmbezzlement and bribery(13 more words not shown)
- DPeople who repeatedly(14 more words not shown)
- ENo one who(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Their chances of getting caught go up. Do they go up enough to make catching most offenders likely?
A rising chance can still be a small chance. Imagine a risk increasing from one in a million to two in a million. It has doubled, but getting caught is still very unlikely. The detective tells us that committing more crimes creates more chances for one to be solved, then concludes that most people who commit these crimes will eventually be caught. I'd want something connecting that increasing risk to the much broader forecast.
The confidence story makes sense as an explanation of how criminals might misjudge their situation: getting away with crimes makes them feel safer while actually exposing them to more opportunities for detection. But feeling confident doesn't establish how likely detection becomes.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for an assumption the argument needs. My first concern is whether the increase in risk is substantial enough. Keep that concern in mind, while remaining open to another missing link in the detective's reasoning.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This exposes a separate gap: the evidence concerns people who commit these crimes repeatedly, but the conclusion concerns people who commit them at all. What if 90 percent commit one offense and stop? A story about escalating risk for repeat offenders wouldn't give us the stated basis for predicting that most offenders get caught.
A connects the group discussed in the evidence with the broader group in the conclusion. It doesn't settle our separate concern about how large the risk becomes, but a required assumption needn't fix every problem in the argument.
- B
General confidence isn't the relevant link. Someone could be nervous in everyday life but grow more confident about avoiding detection after getting away with a crime. The detective doesn't need most offenders to be confident people generally.
- C
These crimes don't have to be solved more often than other crimes. Perhaps police are even better at solving thefts. That comparison wouldn't prevent most embezzlers or people who commit bribery from eventually being caught.
- D
Carelessness could create additional opportunities for detection, but it isn't required. Even an offender who takes the same precautions each time commits another crime that might be solved. The premise already gives us increasing risk as the number of crimes increases.
- E
Some people could be caught on their first offense. That would be perfectly compatible with the conclusion that most are eventually caught. The detective doesn't need to rule out early detection in order to predict eventual detection.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.