hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
In a five-year study of a mid-sized city, neighborhoods that received a new streetlight-brightening program saw a larger drop in nighttime burglaries than neighborhoods that did not. City officials conclude that brighter streetlights deterred burglars by making it easier for passersby and neighbors to observe would-be intruders.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the officials' explanation of the burglary decline?
- Neighborhoods got the brighter streetlights strictly by lottery, not because of prior burglary rates or any other neighborhood trait.
- The brightening program cost more per household on wide boulevards than on narrow residential side streets.
- Residents surveyed after the program said they felt modestly safer walking at night, whether or not their own block was newly lit.
- Total crime of every kind, violent and property alike, fell citywide over those same five years, including in unlit neighborhoods.
- Burglars surveyed in an unrelated nationwide poll ranked visibility as just one of several factors they weigh before picking a target.
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?