Logical reasoning PrepTest 157 · Section 3 · Question 12

When we see "presumes, without providing justification" on an Errors in Reasoning answer choice, the question we should ask ourselves is, "Does the author believe this, and would this strengthen the argument?"

In this case, the columnist doesn't believe that innocuous everyday occurrences are harmful to society. In fact, the whole notion of "innocuous everyday occurrences being harmful to society" is oxymoronic. "Innocuous" literally means "harmless." Besides, the author never claims or implies that anything related to vagrancy is harmful to society. This is enough reason to eliminate (A).

If you were relying on the backup plan for this question, we can make this answer choice easier to read by replacing "presumes, without providing justification" with "assumes." Here's the paragraph we'd read to test this answer choice:

"Some people argue that vagrancy laws do not decrease criminal activity because vagrancy laws transform many harmless behaviors into crimes, therefore increasing crime. But, that argument assumes that that most innocuous everyday occurrences are harmful to society. So, vagrancy laws might reduce criminal activity."

That paragraph doesn't make any sense. The argument doesn't appear to assume that most innocuous everyday occurrences are harmful to society. In fact, it appears to assume the opposite — that vagrancy laws take harmless behaviors and make them crimes. Secondly, even if the argument assumed that those innocuous everyday occurrences were harmful to society, that would undermine the notion that vagrancy might reduce criminal activity! Before vagrancy laws, everyday activity was harmful and legal. After vagrancy laws, everyday activity became harmful and illegal. That sounds like vagrancy laws increased crime to us!

Whichever approach we use, we can eliminate (A).

This misdescribes the columnist's argument. The columnist never establishes that vagrancy laws are associated with an increase in many innocuous everyday occurrences. In fact, the columnist never says that there is an increase of many innocuous everyday occurrences. The columnist instead says that vagrancy laws take the innocuous everyday occurrences that were already happening and transform them into crimes. For this reason, we can cross off (B).

If you were relying on the backup plan for this question, here's the paragraph we'd read to test this answer choice (note that we re-arranged the answer choice a bit to make it easier to read):

"Some people argue that vagrancy laws do not decrease criminal activity because vagrancy laws transform many harmless behaviors into crimes, therefore increasing crime. But, that argument mistakenly concludes that vagrancy laws cause an increase in many innocuous everyday occurrences, from the claim that vagrancy laws are associated with that increase. So, vagrancy laws might reduce criminal activity."

That paragraph doesn't make any sense. First, the argument never says that there is an "increase in many innocuous everyday occurrences" associated with vagrancy laws. So, the part that follows "But" seems inaccurate. Moreover, the "But" part acknowledges that there is an increase in innocuous everyday occurrences. If those occurrences are now classified as crimes under vagrancy laws, then it sounds like vagrancy laws increase crime. That makes the "So" part sound false.

Whichever approach we use, we can eliminate (B).

This isn't a flaw. The columnist doesn't have to define "innocuous everyday occurrences" to convincingly reach this conclusion. As long as the columnist establishes that vagrancy laws don't reduce any criminal activity and only reclassify non-criminal, innocuous everyday occurrences as crimes, the columnist can reach this conclusion without defining what they mean by "innocuous everyday occurrences." For this reason, we can cross off (C).

If you were relying on the backup plan for this question, here's the paragraph we'd read to test this answer choice:

"Some people argue that vagrancy laws do not decrease criminal activity because vagrancy laws transform many harmless behaviors into crimes, therefore increasing crime. But, that argument fails to specify what is meant by 'innocuous everyday occurrences.' So, vagrancy laws might reduce criminal activity."

That paragraph doesn't make any sense. The fact that the argument doesn't specify what "innocuous everyday occurrences" means doesn't prove that vagrancy laws might reduce criminal activity. The "But" and the "So" sentences sound unrelated and disconnected, which is a strong signal that this answer choice does not point out a flaw in the argument's reasoning.

When we see "fails to consider" on an Errors in Reasoning answer choice, the question we should ask ourselves is, "Would this weaken the argument if it were true?"

In this case, crime increasing in the absence of vagrancy laws would not weaken the conclusion that vagrancy laws do not reduce criminal activity. "Crime" is a broad enough term that there could be multiple, unconnected increases. For instance, vagrancy laws could increase criminal activity by, as this columnist says, reclassifying everyday occurrences into crimes. Separate and apart from this phenomenon, there could be a nationwide increase in shoplifting. Even without the vagrancy laws, there would still be this nationwide increase in shoplifting. Still, we could say that the vagrancy laws increase criminal activity, as they're adding to the number of crimes on top of the nationwide increase in shoplifting. So, the fact that some crimes could increase without vagrancy laws doesn't undermine the notion that vagrancy laws increase criminal activity. This is enough reason to eliminate (C).

If you were relying on the backup plan for this question, here's the paragraph we'd read to test this answer choice:

"Some people argue that vagrancy laws do not decrease criminal activity because vagrancy laws transform many harmless behaviors into crimes, therefore increasing crime. But, that argument fails to consider the possibility that crime will increase even in the absence of vagrancy laws. So, vagrancy laws might reduce criminal activity."

That paragraph doesn't make much sense. Even if crime would increase without vagrancy laws, vagrancy laws could still add to the total number of crimes. So, the "But" part doesn't provide strong evidence supporting the "So" part. This is a strong signal that this answer choice does not point out a flaw in the argument's reasoning.

This one points out the flaw that eagle-eyed test-takers may have noticed. There's a big difference between the conclusion and the premise and premise/conclusion: the former discusses "criminal activity," while the latter discusses "crime." Those aren't necessarily the same thing. Increased criminal activity sounds like more people are out there committing crimes. There's more theft, vandalism, assaults, etc. But an increase in "crime" based on the reclassification of formerly legal, harmless activity? That doesn't sound like it's the same thing as an increase in "criminal activity." If we reclassify harmless behavior as "crimes," we won't necessarily see a spike in theft, vandalism, assault, etc. So, it's a problem that the author doesn't "adequately distinguish" these two things. The argument would be much more persuasive if it said, "The amount of criminal activity may stay the same under vagrancy laws, but vagrancy laws will increase the number of crimes committed."

Moreover, even if vagrancy laws increase the amount of crimes committed, it could still decrease the amount of criminal activity. Perhaps knowing they can get cited for violating vagrancy laws will compel "vagrants" from doing other crimes. If loitering is now illegal under vagrancy laws, perhaps people won't loiter or commit the other crimes they typically commit while loitering. That would reduce the amount of criminal activity, even if it increases the number of crimes.

If you were relying on the backup plan for this question, here's the paragraph we'd read to test this answer choice:

"Some people argue that vagrancy laws do not decrease criminal activity because vagrancy laws transform many harmless behaviors into crimes, therefore increasing crime. But, that argument does not adequately distinguish between an increase in criminal activity and the reclassification of certain occurrences as crimes. So, vagrancy laws might reduce criminal activity."

That paragraph makes sense. Yes, the number of crimes might increase once vagrancy laws reclassify previously legal behaviors as crimes. But that doesn't necessarily mean the amount of criminal activity will go up. Vagrancy laws might compel "vagrants" to engage in less criminal activity (like theft, vandalism, and assault), even if it adds to the number of crimes by reclassifying previously legal behavior as crimes.

Whichever method we use, we can select (E) with confidence.