Q9 - Court records from medieval France

[b91302310]

I'm confused about (E). Could anyone explain the effect of (E) on the argument?

Thanks.

[bbirdwell]

(E) does not offer sufficient information to affect the argument at all. it's a confused attempt to distort the use of the "percentage" cited in the argument. It might be a better answer if it told us how many of the arrests occurred while the population was large and how many occurred after the population's decimation.

So the number of arrests increased 30%... and the author concludes that there was a higher level of violence.

That's the crux of the issue. Does "number of arrests" = "level of occurring violence?"

[geverett]

This question is eerily similar to a weaken question regarding infants receiving adequate or inadequate prenatal care. The interesting thing about this question is that one would expect the LSAT would do something they are more often known for which is tricking you into thinking that an increasing percentage equates to an increasing number. That is not, however, what the point at issue is in this argument as you will shortly see. Here's the breakdown:

Sentence 1: From 1300-1400 the number of people arrested for "violent interpersonal crimes" increased by 30% from the period 1200-1300.

What this means is that there actually were more people arrested for violent interpersonal crimes from 1300-1400 then were arrested in the 100 years prior.

Sentence 2: If this increase was not due to a bunch of false arrests then there actually were more cases of "documented interpersonal violence" in 1300-1400 than there was in 1200-1300.

So the author is basically saying that unless the increase in false arrests was due to a bunch of false arrests (unlikely) then there actually were more cases of "documented interpersonal violence".

We are asked to weaken this claim.

(A) This is what we need. If the French government broadened the category of interpersonal crimes that could be considered "violent" to include some crimes that actually are not violent then it would be erroneous for the author of this argument to conclude that the increase in arrests was due to an increase in "interpersonal violence". Winner!
(B) Written accounts of violent attacks written by monastic chroniclers? Perhaps these chroniclers should have spent more time brewing beer than documenting violent attacks. Either way this answer choice does nothing to weaken the claim that the increase in arrests for violent interpersonal crime was actually due to an increase in violent interpersonal crime.
(C) Who cares? Once again this does nothing to address the core of our argument. Get rid of it.
(D) If anything this would strengthen the argument by saying that there was an increase in violence. How much of an increase? We don't know. This answer choice is too ambiguous and would not serve to weaken the argument even if it was less ambiguous.
(E) So there was a decrease in the population? Was the decimation of the population enough to make it lower than it was between 12 and 1300? We don't know, and it doesn't matter anyways. Whatever the comparative total populations of France was between 12-1300 and 13-1400 we have been given concrete information in the stimulus that the number of documented "interpersonal violent crimes" increased by 30%
from the period dating 12-1300 to the period dating 13-1400. There definitely were more documented interpersonal crimes between 13-1400. This answer choice is trying to fool you into thinking this argument choice is all about a "increasing percentages = increasing numbers" fallacy. This argument is not about that and so you can get rid of this answer choice.

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

Question :

The conclusion says that the number of crimes increased; Premise states that the percentage of the violent crimes increased. Wouldn't we want the weaken answer choice to say that the total number of violent crimes decreased instead of increased? I am a bit confused. Please help me.

Secondly, Why is C irrelevant. If the number of people who sweared that they won't commit any crimes increased, it means that the TOTAL number of crimes must have decreased. Essentially, if the total number of crimes decrease, then percentage of the violent crimes could go up, but the actual number could still be down.

For instance,
Period - 1200 - 1300 - Total number of crimes =100;
Violent crimes = 50
%=50%

Period 1300-1400
Total number of crimes = 90
# of violent crimes = 50
%=55.55%
But the number has stayed the same. Any thoughts?

Thanks

[bbirdwell]

The conclusion says that the number of crimes increased; Premise states that the percentage of the violent crimes increased. Wouldn't we want the weaken answer choice to say that the total number of violent crimes decreased instead of increased?

You've got them reversed -- the premises use numbers and the conclusion is a percentage. Maybe this is the source of confusion? Even so, we could also weaken a claim of increase by suggesting that the level stayed the same.

Why is C irrelevant. If the number of people who sweared that they won't commit any crimes increased, it means that the TOTAL number of crimes must have decreased

Actually, it doesn't. It means only what it says: that people made promises. You've incorrectly assumed that those promises were kept.

For instance,
Period - 1200 - 1300 - Total number of crimes =100;
Violent crimes = 50
%=50%

Period 1300-1400
Total number of crimes = 90
# of violent crimes = 50
%=55.55%
But the number has stayed the same. Any thoughts?

You are correct to think about percentages vs. real numbers here! But this example is not analogous to the argument.

In this argument, here's what we know:
Period 1200-1300
Number of arrests for violent crimes: X

Period 1300-1400
Number of arrests for violent crimes: 130% of X

And here's what the author concludes:
Period 1300-1400
Higher level of violence

The essential connection is between having "130% of X" and a "higher level of violence." The latter, as it is the conclusion, is the most important aspect of all. This is the idea I want to weaken.

Here, "higher level" of violence can be equated to a percentage -- the number of crimes relative to the number of people. So, for example,if the population also increased 30%, then the level of violence didn't rise, it stayed exactly the same! Therefore, a correct answer could indicate that the population grew by 30% or more. That's what makes (E) so tempting.

Another kind of correct answer could show that the number of arrests is not an accurate reflection of how much violence there is.

Another kind of correct answer could suggest that more arrests are being made for other reasons (tripled the size of the police force), and thus the level of violence may not have changed at all, simply more violence is being "discovered."

Another kind of correct answer could change the definition of "violent interpersonal crime," as (A) does. If there were 2 crimes in the category before and 500 after, then that would explain how the "number" rose and yet the level did not.

Hope that helps!

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

Another kind of correct answer could suggest that more arrests are being made for other reasons (tripled the size of the police force), and thus the level of violence may not have changed at all, simply more violence is being "discovered."

Brian - Wouldn't this indicate that the number of crimes have actually increased? Essentially, if the number of crimes remained the same by using 3K extra police officers would weaken the argument. However, adding 3k police force and finding that the violence has tripled would mean that the violence has actually increased. Isn't it?

Any thoughts?

Thanks

[bbirdwell]

That statement was meant to suggest that there is a difference between "arrests" and "crimes," and that the interpretation of the numbers can be influenced by knowing other numbers.

Last year in France there could have been 100 arrests, and 1 million violent crimes. The next year there could have been 200 arrests and only 200 violent crimes. Arrests doubled. Did the level of violence increase?

[WaltGrace1983]

Last year in France there could have been 100 arrests, and 1 million violent crimes. The next year there could have been 200 arrests and only 200 violent crimes. Arrests doubled. Did the level of violence increase?

I am confused by this statement. We aren't talking merely about the increase in violence, correct? We are talking about the increase in documented violence. Unless I am mistaken, shouldn't we substitute the "violence" in your quote with "documented violence?" So while the level of violence may not have increased, the level of documented violence certainly did: we went from 100 arrests to 200 arrests.

Can someone help me with my understanding?

1300-1400: 130% of X number of people arrested for "violent interpersonal crimes"
+
1200-1300: X number of people arrested for "violent interpersonal crimes"
+
Increases weren't a result of false arrests
→
1300-1400 had a higher level of documented interpersonal violence than 1200-1300

...But who is to say that arrests for "violent interpersonal crimes" means a "higher level of documented interpersonal violence?" My first thought was that maybe there are other ways to document interpersonal violence, after all, an arrest is sufficient to be documented for "violent interpersonal crimes" but not exactly necessary. I was anticipating something like, "Though the number of arrests for interspinal crimes certainly increased in 1300-1400, there were significantly more written citations for violent acts that did not result in arrests in 1200-1300." Sure this seems a little outlandish, but I think that it is one way that the argument could have gone and - until I reached the answer choices - I thought it was the only way it could have gone.

(A) What I am confused about here is that while these people who were arrested for "violent interpersonal crimes," they were documented as having committed a nonviolent crime. There just seems to be a huge disconnect here.

(B), (C), and (D) introduce irrelevant or inconsequential information. Historical accounts that talk about descriptions of violent attacks doesn't prove anything; these oaths could be broken and don't mean anything anyway; and an increase in violence doesn't have anything to do with documented violence - plus we are talking about the WHOLE of medieval France while this is just talking about a few cities.

(E) I fell for the percentage/raw number trap answer but this wouldn't make sense at all because the argument is not based on percentages. It is based on raw numbers. The populations can swing all they want but at the end of the day we are just talking about how MANY people were arrested, not what PERCENTAGE of people were arrested. It isn't saying that there was a 30% of the POPULATION that was arrested - a 30% increase in the NUMBER arrested.

Who's got me on this one?

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you were correct about everything there except for how you're interpreting (A).

Indeed, Brian's 100 to 200 example doesn't actually apply to this conclusion about "documented violence".

I also think your idea that we have some wiggle room here with other categories of documented violence besides arrests is clever and apt.

The conclusion seems to be about how many interpersonal violent acts were documented in 1300-1400 vs. in 1200-1300.

The premise is about how 30% more people were arrested for "violent interpersonal crimes".

The gap that (A) seems to exploit is that you can be arrested for a 'violent crime' without having necessarily committed any violence.

Let's take something like BLACKMAIL, which presumably people would call nonviolent ... but you can imagine how it might get added to some govt. category of 'violent crimes'.

If the # of cases of blackmail skyrocketed in the 1300s, at the same time that blackmail became added to the category of 'violent crimes', while all other violent crimes stayed as they were in the 1200s, you can see how you could make the premise true but the conclusion false.

Again, the distinction (A) is wedging itself into is one between "being arrested for committing a violent crime" and "being arrested for committing violence". Pretty stupid stuff.

[WaltGrace1983]

Thanks for the response, Patrick! Yeah, I agree that this isn't the most clean-cut LSAT answer in the world. It just seems a little cheap but nonetheless, I shouldn't always expect the *best* answer.

[a8l367]

A states that "in 1300 to1400 violent crimes included increasing variety of actualy nonviolent"
But what about comparable period 1200 to 1300? Did that period included nonviolent too? Seems like we don't know or do we? Do the word "increasing" means "increasing in comparison with 1200 to 1300"?