medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
An analyst argues that a recently enacted law has succeeded in reducing crime. As evidence, the analyst notes that crime rates in the jurisdiction have fallen in the period since the law took effect.
The analyst's argument is most vulnerable to criticism because it fails to consider that:
- some people who commit crimes in the jurisdiction may be entirely unaware that the new law even exists.
- a decline in the measured crime rate does not by itself establish that residents actually feel any safer.
- enforcing the new law may end up costing more than the full monetary value of the crime it manages to prevent.
- the crime rate may already have been declining, owing to other social forces, before the law was ever passed.
- the law may have eliminated crime within the jurisdiction altogether, rather than merely reducing its incidence.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ