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 may be entirely unaware that the new law exists.
- a decline in the crime rate does not by itself mean that residents feel any safer.
- enforcing the new law may cost more than the monetary value of the crime it prevents.
- 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 in the jurisdiction entirely rather than merely reducing it.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- 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
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?