PrepTest 152, Section 2, Question 5
A store was vandalized repeatedly over a six-month(70 more words not shown)
Each of the following, if(9 more words not shown)
- AThere had been(8 more words not shown)
- BBright lights must(18 more words not shown)
- CThe store owner(22 more words not shown)
- DThe store's budget(12 more words not shown)
- EThe store owner(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the vandalism stopped for another reason.
The store owner mentioned that bright lighting can deter vandals. That makes lights a possible explanation for the later improvement, but it doesn't establish that lights were installed. Perhaps the owner started keeping watch outside. Perhaps police patrols increased, or the person responsible was arrested for something else. The same result could follow from different changes.
What we’re looking for
This is an EXCEPT question. Four answers will give us a reason to question the friend's conclusion; we want the one that doesn't. I'd expect alternative explanations for the end of the vandalism.
Working the answers
- A
More police patrols provide another possible deterrent. Vandals might stay away because they are more likely to encounter an officer, whether or not the store installed lights. This weakens the inference from no vandalism to new lighting, so it isn't our exception.
- B
This takes a different route from the alternative causes I first imagined: it challenges the timing. The improvement was reported three months after the conversation, but installation usually takes at least five months. That makes installation within the relevant period less likely. 'Usually' leaves room for an exception, so B doesn't prove lights were impossible; it still calls the friend's conclusion into question.
- CCorrect
Improvement at immediately neighboring stores, but not a block away, is compatible with a local change around this store. Bright perimeter lighting could also affect the nearby stores without reaching the more distant ones. C doesn't establish that lights were installed, but it supplies no clear reason to reject that explanation. It is the exception among four choices that directly undermine the installation claim or offer a competing deterrent.
- D
If the budget didn't allow for installing bright lights, we have a direct reason to doubt that the owner installed them. The friend's inference ignores this obstacle. We don't need to discover the true explanation of the improvement for that obstacle to weaken the conclusion.
- E
The watchdog gives us another way the owner might have deterred vandals. The end of the vandalism could reflect the dog's presence instead of new lights. That is the same kind of alternative explanation as the increased patrols in A, so E belongs among the weakeners.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.