#6 - Violent crime in this town is becoming a serious

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken—#%. The correct answer choice is (C)

The author of this stimulus clearly wishes to imply that there has been a 17% increase in crime, but we should read the wording carefully: “Compared to last year, agencies have responded to 17% more calls.” This is a classic LSAT numbers and percentages trick. Without more information about the numbers, there is no way to assess the meaning of a 17% increase in report responses. Perhaps the local agencies have received more funding, and can afford to respond to a greater portion of calls than they could last year. Or maybe people have become more vigilant and started to report more crimes than they used to.

Correct answer choice (C) provides an alternative explanation for the referenced percentage increase, different from that which the author implies in the stimulus. If people are more likely than ever to report crimes to the proper authorities, then the crime rate may not have changed at all. For example, lets say there were 100 crimes committed last year, and 100 this year. If 10 of the crimes committed last year were reported, versus 20 reported this year, that would represent a 100% increase in the number of crimes reported (presuming that authorities responded to all reported crimes).

None of the other answer choices point out how the limited information provided by the author allow for many alternative explanations. Answer choice (A) actually strengthens the author’s conclusion, and answer choice (B) is irrelevant without significantly more information regarding the towns 65+ population this year and last. It is difficult to assess the effects of answer choice (D) on the argumentation in the stimulus, but it certainly does not weaken the author’s conclusion. Answer choice (E) is irrelevant to the stimulus, because the author deals with the likelihood of becoming a victim, regardless of the number of possibly perpetrators.

[broth99]

Hi Everyone,

So, when I originally read this problem I understood the causal reasoning to be "more violent calls means more likely for the average citizen to become a victim." I had thought it was an increase/decrease in likelihood type of causal reasoning. This is because the stimulus says "[more calls] shows that [being victim is more likely]". However, the answer key seems to say that the the causal reasoning is "greater number of violent crimes causes more calls reporting these crimes". And I do understand where the answer key is getting this from. But I was wondering if my interpretation was also valid and if it is possible that this stimulus has two causal reasonings and only one of them was used by the correct answer choice.

P.S. Assuming my interpretation is valid, it would also mean the two reasonings could be linked to produce a super rule, right? (More violent crimes shows an increased chance of average citizen being a victim)

Thanks,
Barath S.

[Adam Tyson]

The first relationship you've shown here isn't really causal, Barath, because the calls aren't causing anything! The calls are an effect of something, and the author seems to think the additional calls are being caused by more crimes.

If you're asking whether the author is claiming that more crimes are causing a greater likelihood of being a victim, then yes, the author is basing their argument partially on that, but that of course starts with the assumption that there ARE more crimes, which may not be the case (and that's what the correct answer addresses). In addition to assuming that there are more actual crimes, the conclusion requires more crimes per citizen; an alternate cause could be an increase in the population, which could mean more crimes without there being any increase in the average number of crimes per person. While that could also have been attacked in the answer choices, it wasn't.

So yes, there is a sort of super rule at work here! The author has made multiple unwarranted assumptions, and pointing any of them out would weaken the argument.

[broth99]

sorry for the late reply. but i guess what i am still having trouble with is how the causal relationship from the answer key can determined from the text alone (e.g. identifying causal indicators) .Cause after reading the answer key and then rereading the stimulus it makes sense "like mentally", being an English speaker. But when i redid the problem and I realized I am still having trouble id-ing the causal relationship from the text alone, like we do with conditional relationships. Basically a run down of how i attempted this problem during my second time:

1) i used the Conclusion Identification Method to rephrase the sentence as: "violent crime is this town is becoming a serious problem because [the police] recieve more calls about it....".
2) Then I saw that "because" in rephrased sentence and came to the conclusion that increased violent crime is the effect and increased calls was the cause.

However, I understand that relationship neither makes sense nor agrees with the answer key. But I am not sure where I am messing up. I was hoping someone can point me in the right direction.

Thanks,
Barath Srinivasan

[Adam Tyson]

The causal reasoning here is implied rather than explicit, so you won't find any clear causal indicators. Your more holistic approach is good, but you're incorrectly identifying the cause and effect. The author is not arguing that the increase in calls are causing more crimes. The implied "because" is not placing the responsibility on the calls. It's more like "we know this is true because of more calls." The "because" here is just pointing to the evidence, which in this case is an effect.

Try paraphrasing the argument this way instead:

"Police are responding to more calls involving violent crime; therefore, more people are becoming victims of violent crime, which means violent crime is becoming a serious problem."

Seen this way, are the cause and effect perhaps a little clearer?

[broth99]

Thank you Adam!! What you said makes a lot of sense. I thought causal relationships had to be explicit like conditional relationships. So, when attempting similar problems in the future, I guess I should avoid forcing explicit indicators when one doesnt exist and focus more on what the stimulus is trying to say.

[nickp18]

Hi everyone!

I was just wondering if I broke this argument down correctly.

Premise 1: Violent crime in this town is becoming a serious problem.
Premise 2: Compared to last year, local law enforcement agencies have responded to 17% more calls involving violent crimes...
Conclusion: The average citizen is more likely than ever to become a victim of a violent crime.

Thank you!

Nick

[Adam Tyson]

I don't think that's quite right, Nick. The first statement is not a premise, but a conclusion. The author thinks that the rise in call/response numbers indicates that crime is up. More calls, therefore a greater chance of being a victim, and thus a more serious problem. The first sentence is based on the next two, rather than supporting either of them.

[sunshine123]

Howdy,

I have a structural question. Can the first sentence be interpreted as the conclusion while the statement that reads, "Showing that the average citizen is more likely to encounter crime" as a sub-conclusion? If so, then the move from premise to sub-conclusion is still up for criticism in the same way its already been assumed that its up for criticism.

Best,
Sunshine

[Adam Tyson]

That's exactly how I see it, Sunshine. The first sentence is the main conclusion, supported by the premise about calls and the sub-conclusion about increased likelihood (which means a higher rate of violent crime, aka more violent crime per capita).