#11 - A controversial program rewards prison inmates who

[jlam061695]

I can see why E is the correct answer, but why are B and D incorrect? Doesn't the stimulus explicitly "dismiss moral considerations" by stating "putting these moral issues aside" and doesn't it also state that the rehabilitation of criminals is not a moral issue" by asserting that the surgery has a powerful rehabilitative effect (which implicitly defines a form of rehabilitation as separate from a "moral issue")? Are B and D incorrect because they do not pose a problem for the argument?

[Adam Tyson]

Hey jlam!

Take another look at the stimulus and you will see that our author does not in any way dismiss moral issues in his argument. Rather, he "puts them aside". In other words, he acknowledges that they are an issue, but wants to focus his argument on something else, the cause and effect relationship. It's not "morals don't matter", but rather "morals might matter, but that's not what I want to talk about for the moment."

Imagine we are planning a vacation, and we are trying to decide whether to go to Hawaii or Finland. I tell you "putting aside the choice of destination, let's talk for a moment about our budget and what we can afford to pay." Am I dismissing the subject of location as irrelevant? Not at all - I'm just saying that there's something else we also need to talk about.

Let us know if that makes sense!

[PeterC123]

Hi,

Is everything from the first sentence (a controversial program...) to the end of the second sentence (train future surgeons) fluff?

Is answer E right b/c some of the inmates had plastic surgery so even if they committed a new crime when they got out, they were not accounted for in the fact/survey?

Thanks,

[Kristina Moen]

Hi Peter,

Not at all. The first sentence is quite relevant! Pay close attention to how inmates are chosen for this program. Inmates who "behave particularly well" are "rewarded" with free cosmetic plastic surgery. So it should come as no surprise that those inmates commit fewer crimes once released.

Imagine this: "Students who get straight A's are rewarded with a trip to Hawaii. The students who go to Hawaii are more likely to go on to college than student who did not go to Hawaii, so Hawaii must have a powerful academic effect."

Answer Choice (E) is correct. If the sample was random, and inmates were randomly chosen to receive free plastic surgery (side note: this stimulus is so weird!), and those who received plastic surgery were still less likely to commit crimes after release, then the conclusion that plastic surgery has a "powerful rehabilitative effect" might make more sense!

Although there could be another flaw - the premise is about convictions for new crimes. What if those who received plastic surgery were just so beautiful that they were more likely to be found innocent?

[PeterC123]

Dang can't believe I missed that!!

That makes the answer choice much better.

Thanks

[gen2871]

Hi Dear LSAT masters:

Besides the unrepresentative sample, I see a separate flaw, which lies in the last sentence of the stimulus.

It says" the proportion who are convinced of new crimes committed after release of only half that for the prison population as a whole.

I see there might be a statistical error present. If there are 1000 inmates, and 800 of the prisoners got out after the surgery. and 500 committed the crime as half of the prison population, it still a pretty big number to claim to have a powerful rehabilitative effect since 62.5% (500/800=0.625) of the prisoners still committed crime. Understand it was not in any of the answer choices, but I would love to have some of the geniuses check my understanding of English as well as my reasoning. Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

I think something may have been lost in translation, gen, but let me see if I can help with numbers similar to those you offered.

There are 100 prisoners. 500 get the surgery, 500 do not.

Of the 1000 release prisoners, 200 commit new crimes. That means 20% of the prison population as a whole.

Of the 500 who got the surgery, the rate who committed new crimes is half that rate, or just 10%. 50 of them committed crimes.

Based on those figures, which show a correlation between a lower crime rate and getting the surgery, the author concludes that the surgery is causing the reduction in repeat crimes. There's no statistical error, even if we change the numbers to 950 of the inmates committing new crimes, because it's not about having a substantial impact on total crime but having a substantial impact on crime relative to those inmates who did not get the surgery.

I hope that helps clear it up for you, gen! Keep at it!