Logical reasoning PrepTest 109 · Section 3 · Question 7

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Newspapers today have a lot more stories about violent crime, so it's not safe to go outside.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument falls into a common flawed pattern of reasoning—one related to comparisons. Specifically, it's using one metric as a proxy for another. The stimulus doesn't establish any information in the premises about the actual crime rate—instead, it establishes that the coverage of crime has increased in frequency. It uses this to conclude that the crime rate has gone up.

Whenever an argument uses such a proxy for another measurement, it's assuming that the two are directly related. If the proxy could increase without the other measurement going up, then that comparison is flawed.

Here, it's possible for newspapers to have more crime coverage despite the crime rate not increasing. Maybe they discovered that crime sells, and so they're covering more violent crimes, or going more in—depth with the ones that happen. Let's find an answer bringing that up.

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up a relevant difference between news coverage today and previously ("in the old days" from the stimulus) that calls into question whether an increase in coverage reflects an increase in crime. If coverage today is more comprehensive then the change wouldn't reflect an increase in crime but rather a change in how it's covered.

Key Takeaway:
Two takeaways. First whenever an argument uses one measurement as a proxy for another there's always a chance that the two aren't directly related so any answer that connects or disconnects those measurements is relevant. Second the LSAT loves using news coverage as a proxy for other phenomena (usually crime or natural disasters) and the answer is almost always that news coverage doesn't necessarily reflect frequency.

Incorrect. This answer aligns with the argument, so it doesn't cast doubt on the conclusion. (Maybe if the argument recommended moving to another area this answer would weaken it.)

Incorrect. "More" violent crime could be at a very high level or at a very low level. Also where the crime happens is immaterial to whether the crime happens and how dangerous it is to leave one's home.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about violent crime, so what subset of violent crime has increased the most is out of scope. Also, if murder is more common, that aligns with the conclusion that things are pretty dangerous out there—while being assaulted is bad, it's not as bad as being murdered.

Incorrect. How important news magazines are in informing the public about crime doesn't speak to how closely their coverage reflects the frequency of the crime, so this answer is out of scope.