Logical reasoning PrepTest 109 · Section 3 · Question 14

Incorrect. The stats show that the number of police isn't the only factor in determining the crime rate, but that doesn't mean it's not a factor and that there doesn't need to be an increase—just that there are other things that can be adjusted, as well.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't lead to any recommendation—it simply points out statistics showing that the number of police (and the ratio to population) isn't the only factor in determining the crime rate.

Incorrect. So close! The stats do prove that the number of police officers isn't the only factor in reducing the crime rate but that doesn't tell us the relevant importance of those factors. The number of cops could be the most important factor even if it's not completely determinative.

Incorrect. This answer goes too far. While the stimulus does note a "similar" ratio of cops to citizens and a "widely" divergent crime rate that's not enough to say that the two are completely unrelated. They could be tenuously related but still related.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Many people: To address crime you must hire more cops.

Author: Stats show that cities with the same ratio of cops:citizens have different crime rates (so the number of cops can't be the only factor in crime and thus there must be other ways to address crime).

Answer Anticipation:
This Argument Structure question features an opposing point ("Many people . . . ") that the author pivots away from ("but"). However the author never explicitly states her opinion of that opposing point so it's up to us to determine that conclusion. Arguments with implied conclusions can be difficult to work with but we should try to figure out which of the two common opinions of the opposing point the author is building towards—the opposing point is wrong; or the opposing point has failed to establish their conclusion.

Here the opposing point is a very strong statement—the only way to fix crime is to hire more cops. The author brings up statistics highlighting that cops and crime aren't directly related since places that have the same ratio of cops don't have the same rates of crime. As such there must be other factors that determine crime rate and so there must be other ways to address crime.

While the author here does disagree with the conclusion (which is what we wrote in the parenthetical in our Summary) she doesn't necessarily think that the approach mentioned there wouldn't work. She could believe that hiring more cops would reduce crime just that there are other means of addressing it as well.

The statement in question here is the one bringing up the statistics so we should look for an answer stating that it's meant to call an opposing point's conclusion into question and suggest that there are other factors involved that that view doesn't take into account.

Answer Explanation:
The stats cited show that the number of cops (and the ratio to citizens) can be the same in places that have different crime rates so that number can't be the only factor on the crime rate. This answer reflects the argument and the role of the statistics in it so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
On occasion an argument will have an implied conclusion. When the argument is a rebuttal to an opposing point the implied conclusion will almost always be either that the opposing point is wrong or that the opposing point has failed to prove itself.