Q24 - Police Commissioner: Last year our city

[jklein1233]

I'm having trouble seeing the difference between answer choice D and E. Both are additional pieces of information not mentioned in the question prompt that would weaken the argument. Any help would be much appreciated.

John

[aileenann]

Hi John,

Happy to be of assistance!

I would say one thing that is sometimes confusing for students is that with weaken or strengthen questions, you should not be so concerned about whether information is new or whether it builds on something already in the argument. With S/W questions you should feel fully at liberty to add all sorts of new stuff - the real inquiry is whether the new stuff is relevant and which of all the answer choices is most relevant in the right direction.

Here, let's first think about the core of the argument. The author's gist is:

There was a drop in violent crime that corresponded with and only with the introduction of a new sentencing law -> (therefore) the last must have caused the drop.

This is our good old correlation-causation fallacy, at least as one of the errors here. The author is assuming there couldn't have been other causes - say earlier laws just coming into effect or non-legal factors.

So I'll keep an eye out for this in the answer choices, but I'll also think about other options.

(D) is new information, but I am not sure it really weakens the argument. What it mostly does is make the drop in crime more impressive - specifically that the crime rate went down even though more things counted as a violent crime. However, our argument is concerned about the cause of the decrease, and this doesn't push one way or another on that question.

(E) is an aha moment! It matches up with what I pointed out earlier. Specifically, we are looking for whether there might be another cause for the decrease in crime even if everything the author says is true. This gives it to us. Specifically, the increase in police officers could explain the decrease in crime, thus undermining the author's claim that it was the new law that caused the decrease in crime.

As for the other answers:

(A) is tempting - doesn't this provide another reason why crime might have dropped? - however we have no reason to believe that the city's economic conditions have improved. A similar answer to this would be "studies show that if Batman lives in your town, crime drops." Just because something would cause crime to drop, if we don't know that thing is happening, why do we care?

(B) is also tempting. It seems to say that judges already were throwing violent criminals behind bars (and thus, the new law wouldn't have changed a thing). However, (B) is about "some crimes" and while the punishments for those crimes were "unusually harsh," they might not have included jail time.

(C) is a premise de-booster and a detail creep. We already know that violent crime dropped 15% - don't question or support that premise. However, definitely don't tell us about crime in general - we're only interested in violent crime.

I hope this helps! Feel free to reach out with additional questions or your own comments. Feedback is always welcome.

[jklein1233]

Ahh yes, I seemed to have misunderstood how answer choice D related to the argument. Looking at it again, it's actually fairly straightforward for a question that late in the section.

Thanks for the help!

[aileenann]

Good to hear. I do agree that this is somewhat more straightforward than it might have been given how late in the section it is.

[adarsh.murthy]

I am not quite sure why A is wrong...this is also adding a some new information like option E, which is giving a new cause for the causal statement. E is assuming that more police does infact reduce crime. A is assuming better economic situation in a different city led to less crime, so it implicitly assumes better economic situation in this city will lead to less crime as well. Both A and E are asuming stuff. Is it ore a question which option is assuming "more" and hence wrong?

Thanks

[noah]

Good question. I went back and edited Aileen's answer to include a discussion of the wrong answers. Take a moment to read that over first.

I am not quite sure why A is wrong...this is also adding a some new information like option E, which is giving a new cause for the causal statement.

True, but (E) gives us the "thing" that we can infer might actually lower crime, (A) tells us what would lower crime if it were happening. We don't know if there's a better economic situation.

E is assuming that more police does infact reduce crime.

Careful - (E) doesn't assume that it definitely will. It simply requires us to assume that it might. We have to weaken an argument which concludes with something be the cause - all we have to do is be able to point to something else that is a reasonable alternative cause.

A is assuming better economic situation in a different city led to less crime, so it implicitly assumes better economic situation in this city will lead to less crime as well.

(A) doesn't assume that a better economy led to less crime - it tells us that. But, it tells us that about another city. We'd need to know if this city's economy is improving.

Does that clear it up?

[adarsh.murthy]

Its touch and go! But I agree! Thanks! This forum is great!

[timsportschuetz]

Answer choice (A) is clearly wrong for the following and frequently repeated trap: If a conclusion is of causal nature and it is based on premises that simply state correlation, then, any answer stating another piece of correlated items similar to the argument is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT! This has repeated itself numerous times over the years. How can stating another correlation strengthen/weaken a causal conclusion based on only evidence of correlation? It CANNOT.

[bp0]

(D) is new information, but I am not sure it really weakens the argument. What it mostly does is make the drop in crime more impressive - specifically that the crime rate went down even though more things counted as a violent crime. However, our argument is concerned about the cause of the decrease, and this doesn't push one way or another on that question.

I am sorry but this explanation to me doesn't make sense. You are assuming that this, in addition, helped make the crime rate go down, and is not the definitive cause. If you simply expand the definition and therefore by expanding the definition to include J walking let's say and MIPs which never ever happen in this city, then couldn't that be in fact the entire reason the crime rate went down in the first place? Let me use an analogy, if you expand the definition of rape to consist of J walking that would obviously affect the rate at which rape happens and could be the specific reason that caused the average rate to fluctuate. Which would then definitively disprove what the police commisioner is saying. In addition, I would also take into account that this would also disprove the fact that no other "policy" changes are made as this could certinly be considered a policy change........

(E) is an aha moment! It matches up with what I pointed out earlier. Specifically, we are looking for whether there might be another cause for the decrease in crime even if everything the author says is true. This gives it to us. Specifically, the increase in police officers could explain the decrease in crime, thus undermining the author's claim that it was the new law that caused the decrease in crime.

E) Simply because you expand a policy force doesn't necessarily mean that you will decrease the rate of violent crimes? What if they just sat at the office all day?

It seems to me this just a poorly written question. Any thoughts or rebuttals?

[lsat2016]

(D) is new information, but I am not sure it really weakens the argument. What it mostly does is make the drop in crime more impressive - specifically that the crime rate went down even though more things counted as a violent crime. However, our argument is concerned about the cause of the decrease, and this doesn't push one way or another on that question.

I am sorry but this explanation to me doesn't make sense. You are assuming that this, in addition, helped make the crime rate go down, and is not the definitive cause. If you simply expand the definition and therefore by expanding the definition to include J walking let's say and MIPs which never ever happen in this city, then couldn't that be in fact the entire reason the crime rate went down in the first place? Let me use an analogy, if you expand the definition of rape to consist of J walking that would obviously affect the rate at which rape happens and could be the specific reason that caused the average rate to fluctuate. Which would then definitively disprove what the police commisioner is saying. In addition, I would also take into account that this would also disprove the fact that no other "policy" changes are made as this could certinly be considered a policy change........

(E) is an aha moment! It matches up with what I pointed out earlier. Specifically, we are looking for whether there might be another cause for the decrease in crime even if everything the author says is true. This gives it to us. Specifically, the increase in police officers could explain the decrease in crime, thus undermining the author's claim that it was the new law that caused the decrease in crime.

E) Simply because you expand a policy force doesn't necessarily mean that you will decrease the rate of violent crimes? What if they just sat at the office all day?

It seems to me this just a poorly written question. Any thoughts or rebuttals?

Could anyone provide a further explanation for answer choice D?

[aryehkln94]

Hey lsat2016 and bpo!

So I was originally thinking like u guys that it does weaken bc if add 2 more crimes to the list of violent crimes and then the crime rate goes down u can say that it's bc more crimes were added that to the group of violent crimes that people are less willing to do those crimes like the example of j walking that someone mentioned above, if that were added then people would stop j walking hence a decrease in violent crime. But u can also say this streanthens bc the fact that 2 more crimes were added and still the crime rate went down so it must have the mandatory sentencing that caused the drop in crime..... so the fact that when it's a weakener it needs a assumption and that it can go both ways is enough to trash this answer.....

Would appreciate feedback thx!

[xjiang.xj]

I still can't understand why B is wrong. I think it points to a cause (hash penalties) other than the sentencing law. Maybe the decrease is due to the harsh penalties and the sentencing law may not have an effect.

Any explanations?

[ohthatpatrick]

You're correct in thinking this answer will probably give us a DIFFERENT reason why last year our city experienced a 15% decrease in violent crime.

And you're saying, according to (B),
"the reason violent crime decreased 15% last year is because for many years we've imposed really harsh penalties for some crimes".

The author might say, "Well if we've been imposing harsh penalties for many years prior to last year, then why was there suddenly a change LAST year? It took criminals many years to notice that the harsh penalties existed and they all of a sudden noticed last year?"

In other words, it's not very common sense to think that some static, unchanging condition would be the cause for something new.

It's more common sense to think that something that changed LAST YEAR would be the reason for something that changed last year.

(E) becomes a superior answer because LAST YEAR we got 100 new police officers.

I think (B) was actually written in the attempt to get people to pick it for a different reason.

Any time you're evaluating a causal argument, you will either see the correct answer deal with:
1. OTHER ways to explain the same background evidence
or
2. The plausibility of the author's explanation

(B) seems to subtract from the plausibility of the author's explanation, saying "Does it really seem plausible that crime went down because of the deterrent factor of our new mandatory sentencing law? After all, some crimes were ALREADY receiving really harsh penalties."

The problem with this way of using (B) is that the answer choice says "some crimes", which could be a very small number and which may have nothing to do with VIOLENT crimes.

[kkate]

Quick question as I read (B) prior to the enactment of the mandatory sentencing law, judges in the city had for many years already imposed unusually harsh penalties for some crimes.

For S/W, are terms like "some" usually a boo-hoo?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, any time the question stem is worded ...

Which of the following, if true/valid/assumed

(Strengthen, Weaken, Explain Discrepancy, Sufficient Assumption, Principle Strengthen)

... we would prefer STRONG language and we're very dubious of WEAK language (some, can, may, might, not all, many)

Naturally, they can be correct sometimes, but it's an important red flag to have built in to your thought process.

Some = at least one.

So (B) is telling us, unimpressively, that "at least one crime (who knows if it's a violent crime or not) had an unusually harsh penalty prior to the mandatory sentencing law."