PrepTest 143, Section 1, Question 11
Police chief: During my tenure as chief, crime(33 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(15 more words not shown)
- AThe crime rate(14 more words not shown)
- BThe crime rate(18 more words not shown)
- CThe crime rate(20 more words not shown)
- DThe crime rate(16 more words not shown)
- EThe variation in(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Crime fell while the chief was in charge. Did it fall because of the chief?
Perhaps the economy improved and fewer people turned to crime. Perhaps some other change reduced crime regardless of police strategy. Using current data and concentrating officers in high-crime areas sounds like a possible explanation, but describing a plausible strategy doesn't establish what caused the decline.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to challenge the chief's explanation, not the fact that crime fell. I'd look for evidence of another reason for the improvement, or evidence that the same improvement happened without this particular strategy.
Working the answers
- A
A city can have a high crime rate and still experience a real improvement. Being worse off than other cities doesn't show why its own rate fell by 20 percent. The chief's claim concerns the cause of that change, not whether the city is now the safest place to live.
- B
Several decades before the chief arrived is the wrong starting point for this comparison. Crime could have risen greatly during those decades, then fallen during the chief's tenure. B doesn't challenge the proposed explanation for the later drop.
- C
An early decline followed by a plateau is compatible with the strategy having an effect. Perhaps it produced its benefits quickly. We need a reason to doubt the chief caused the decline, and knowing when during the tenure it occurred doesn't supply one.
- DCorrect
Crime fell even more across the country during the same period. That gives us reason to investigate a broader trend rather than credit the local strategy for the city's entire decline. The city improved by 20 percent while the country improved by about 30 percent, so the local improvement isn't especially impressive against that comparison.
This doesn't prove the strategy had no effect. Local conditions could differ. But it makes the chief's confident claim much less secure: something affecting the country more generally could account for the city's improvement too.
- E
Smaller differences between neighborhoods don't explain a change over time. The city can have relatively similar crime rates across its areas whether the chief's strategy works or not. E doesn't provide evidence about what caused the overall decline.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.