PrepTest 141, Section 2, Question 13
Reformer: A survey of police departments keeps track(65 more words not shown)
A flaw in the reformer's(4 more words not shown)
- Ainfers without justification(19 more words not shown)
- Bignores the possibility(19 more words not shown)
- Coverlooks the possibility(11 more words not shown)
- Dpresumes, without providing(13 more words not shown)
- Etakes for granted(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What would the crime rate have been without the additional imprisonment?
Maybe it would have climbed sharply. Holding crime down while other forces push it upward could be a real benefit, even if the observed rate never falls below where it started. Imagine a rate that would otherwise have reached 150 crimes per 100,000 people but stays at 100 instead. No observed decline doesn't mean no effect.
The reformer reports no significant reduction over twenty years, despite a larger share of the population being imprisoned and increased spending. That's a reason to investigate effectiveness. It isn't enough to conclude that putting more people in prison cannot help. We need a comparison with what would have happened without the greater imprisonment, not just a comparison with the past.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, look for that missing possibility: things might have been worse without the measure the reformer dismisses.
Working the answers
- A
The argument makes no inference about each police department's reported crimes. It discusses the national rate and concludes that more imprisonment cannot help reduce crime. Also, “no significant reduction” doesn't tell us whether the rate stayed flat or increased; A invents a particular inference the author doesn't make.
- BCorrect
This is the comparison we need. The crime rate might have increased substantially without the greater rate of imprisonment. If so, imprisonment could have reduced crime relative to what would otherwise have happened, even though the historical figures show no significant decrease. The reformer overlooks that possibility.
- C
The figures already account for population size. The crime rate is crimes per 100,000 people, and the imprisonment figure is a percentage of the population. A larger population alone doesn't explain away the relationship between those rates. We aren't simply comparing raw totals of crimes and prisoners.
- D
The reformer could think every alternative is equally ineffective. The conclusion only dismisses the usefulness of increasing imprisonment; it doesn't compare imprisonment with rehabilitation or another policy. Assuming some alternative would work better isn't necessary to make this particular argument.
- E
The reformer doesn't require an exact proportional relationship between prisoners and crimes. The reasoning is that imprisonment rose without a significant crime reduction, so more imprisonment cannot help. Its problem is the missing comparison with the situation absent that increase, not an assumed numerical ratio between crimes and prisoners.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.