medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The mayor defends the city's camera program by pointing out that crime fell in every district where cameras were installed. But crime fell by just as much in comparable districts that had no cameras, all of them tracking a citywide decline that began before the cameras went up. The mayor's evidence therefore does nothing to show that the cameras reduced crime, whatever other merits the program may have.
The claim that crime fell just as much in comparable districts without cameras plays which one of the following roles in the argument?
- It establishes that crime did not decline in any district where cameras were installed.
- It shifts the issue from whether the cameras reduced crime to whether residents approve of them, and therefore treats resident approval as the relevant measure of the cameras’ success.
- It supplies a control comparison showing that the observed decline need not have resulted from the cameras.
- It states the conclusion that the camera program has no merit of any kind.
- It concedes the mayor's causal explanation before the author qualifies that explanation.
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 these statements?
- 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?